DwisioQ         'b//  // 


THE  ANTIQUITY    ap""" 


OF 


HEBREW  WRITING  AND 
LITERATURE 


OR 


PROBLEMS  IN  PENTATEUCHAL 
CRITICISM 


BY, 

Hlyin  Sylvester  Zerbe,  Ph.  D.,  D.  D. 

Professor  of   Old  Testarr\ei\t   CriticiSEq   ar\d.  Tt\eology 

ir\  \\\Q  Central  Tt)eologtcal  Sen\ir\ary 

Daytoi\,  Of\io 


1911 

central     publishing     HOUSE 
CLEYELRND,   OHIO 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


Europe  Through  American  Eyes,  1886. 

The  Old  Testament  a  Book  for  Our  Times,  1 888. 

The   Code    Hammurabi  and    the   Book  of  the 
Covenant,   1905. 

Lost  Books   and    Records    Quoted  in  the   Old 
Testament,   1908. 


COPYRIGHTED.  1911 


PREFACE 

THIS  volume  is  the  outgrowth  of  investigations  conducted 
in  the  discharge  of  duties  in  connection  with  the  chair 
of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literature  in  Heidelberg  The- 
ological Seminary,  Tiffin,  O.,  1887-1907,  and  in  that  of  Old 
Testament  Criticism  and  Theology  in  the  Central  Theological 
Seminary,  Da>1:on,  O.,  1907-  .  In  the  preparation  of  lectures 
on  the  origin  and  transmission  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  author 
failed  to  find  in  any  language  a  work  which  discusses  adequately 
the  language,  script  and  writing-material  which  Moses  might 
have  employed,  in  composing  the  Pentateuch.  The  common 
Introductions  to  the  Old  Testament,  even  the  most  extensive, 
while  describing  minutely  the  transmission  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment after  it  had  received  a  fixed  form  at  the  hands  of  scribes, 
Talmudists  and  Massoretes,  pass  lightly  over  the  David-Ezra 
period,  and  furnish  little  or  nothing  on  the  external  history  of 
the  text  in  the  pre-Davidic  period. 

The  attempt  is  here  made  to  supply  the  necessary  data  for 
a  thorough  discussion  of  the  transmission  and  preservation  of 
the  first  seven  books  of  the  Bible  (Heptateuch)  in  the  centuries 
immediately  following  the  Mosaic  age.  The  theses  defended 
here  are:  i.  The  conditions  for  the  cultivation  of  writing  and 
literature  by  the  Hebrews  arose  from  three  to  four  centuries 
earlier  than  allowed  in  the  current  (largely  negative)  criticism. 
2.  The  Pentateuch  in  its  underlying  strata  may  well,  for  aught 
to  the  contrary  (so  far  as  outer  possibilities  go),  have  origin- 
ated under  the  guiding  hand  of  Moses.  The  aim  is,  not  to 
discuss  the  Pentateuchal  problem  as  such,  but  to  supply  the 
prolegomena  to  such  a  discussion. 

A  brief  outline  of  the  argument  may  be  of  service  to  the 
reader.     After  a  statement  of  the  antithetic  positions  of  the  con- 

III 


IV  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

servative  and  the  radical  schools  of  Old  Testament  criticism 
and  theology  (Chapter  I)  and  an  explanation  of  the  aim, 
methods  and  alleged  results  of  criticism  (Chap.  II),  it  is  shown 
that  the  Hebrews  as  a  branch  of  the  great  Semitic  stock  inher- 
ited the  traditions  and  literary  instincts  of  their  kin  and  were 
as  far  advanced  in  civilization  as  their  contemporaries.  Through 
close  political  and  cultural  contact  with  the  Babylonians  and 
the  Egyptians,  the  antiquity  of  whose  literature  is  briefly  de- 
scribed (Chap.  Ill),  the  gifted  and  resourceful  Hebrews  prob- 
ably already  at  an  early  date  prepared  records  comparing  fav- 
orably with  those  of  the  ancient  world  generally  (Chap.  IV-). 
The  fpld  Testament  books  of  the  middle  period  having  been 
written  in  the  archaic  Hebrew  script,  the  question  emerges, 
when  the  Hebrews  adopted  the  Phoenician  (more  properly 
Semitic)  alphabet;  and  this  turns  on  the  date  of  its  origin.  If 
the  alphabet  was  not  invented  before  the  Mosaic  age,  or,  if  in- 
vented, it  had  not  yet  reached  the  Hebrews,  it  is  a  waste  of  time 
to  argue  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage and  script  (Qiap.  V). 

Since  the  dominant  school  of  Old  Testament  criticism,  the 
Grafian,  (whose  shibboleth  is  that  the  Priest  code  is  the  latest 
of  the  codes,  c.  445  B.  C,  and  so,  according  to  Duhm,  the  Mosaic 
age  "is  at  one  stroke  zviped  out"),  holds  that  the  Phcenician 
alphabet  reached  Israel  only  about  1000  B.  C,  the  problem  of 
the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  hinges,  not  on  an  a  priori  and 
critical  analysis  of  the  contents  (the  method  pursued  alike  by 
conservatives  and  radicals),  but  on  the  prior  question  of  the 
language  and  script  employed  by  the  Hebrews  in  the  Mosaic 
and  pre-Davidic  periods,  or,  more  specifically,  on  the  date  of 
their  adoption  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet  (Chap.  V). 

The  theories  of  the  Phoenician,  Egyptian,  Hittite,  Babylon- 
ian, Aramaic,  South  Arabic,  or  Cretan  origin  of  the  alphabet 
are  reviewed  and  the  conclusion  reached  that  the  Phoenicians 
have  the  best  claim  to  the  distinction  (Chaps.  VI  and  IX).  All 
the  lines  of  evidence  show  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was 
adopted  by  the  Greeks  c.  1 200-1 100;    and  the  fixed  forms  of 


PREFACE.  V 

the  Phoenician  letters  and  letter-names  at  that  date  imply  sev- 
eral centuries  of  previous  development.  Contrary  to  the  old 
view  that  some  genius  devised  and  at  once  brought  into  general 
use  the  Semitic  alphabet  of  22  letters,  it  is  pointed  out  that, 
according  to  the  principles  of  alphabetology,  written  Hke  spoken 
language  is  the  result  of  centuries  of  growth  and  development, 
of  selection  and  rejection,  and  that  slow  differentiation  is  the 
law  governing  the  life  and  transformation  of  alphabets.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Phoenician  alphabet  (assuming  that  the  law  of 
development  in  the  centuries  prior  to  lOCXD  B.  C.  was  about  the 
same  as  thereafter)  reached  its  completed  form  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  one  or  two  letters)  as  early  as  1500  B.  C.  As  over 
against  the  securely  intrenched  cuneiform,  the  Scriptura  sacra 
et  diplomatica,  it  circulated  at  first  as  a  Scriptura  profana  et 
privata  (which  explains  its  non-employment  in  the  Amarna 
Letters).     Chap.  X. 

That  the  early  Old  Testament  books  were  composed  in  the 
Hebrew  language  and  the  archaic  Hebrew  script  appears  cer- 
tain from  such  external  evidence  as  the  Samaria  ostraca,  Siloam 
inscription,  Gezer  Calendar  tablet,  the  Jeroboam  and  other 
ancient  seals,  and  from  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Song  of 
Deborah,  the  Book  of  Jashar,  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jeho- 
vah and  other  early  productions  (Chap.  VH  and  XI).  It  is 
probable  that  the  Hebrews  while  in  Egypt  learned  the  Egyptian 
language  and  script,  and  that  Moses  and  his  scribes  understood 
the  Babylonian  language  and  script ;  but  it  is  improbable  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  written  in  Egyptian  hieratic,  or  in  cunei- 
form. The  Hebrews  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  Phoenician 
letters  while  yet  in  Egypt  through  contact  with  people  speaking 
the  Canaanite-Phoenician-Hebrew  dialect,  or  possibly  through 
the  Minseans.  It  is  shown  that  the  extensive  literature  of  the 
David- Solomon  period,  as  e.  g.,  David's  Lament  over  Saul  and 
Jonathan,  various  Psalms,  and  historical  works,  are  composed 
in  a  finished  style  and  imply  a  long  previous  period  of  writing 
and  of  the  cultivation  of  literature  (Chap.  XII).  The  ante- 
cedent probability  of  a  considerable  body  of  pre-Davidic  litera- 


VI  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

ture  is  confinned  by  the  Book  of  Jashar,  the  Book  of  the  Wars 
of  Jehovah,  Jotham's  Parable  and  Joshua's  copying  of  the  law. 
The  results  thus  obtained  prepare  the  way  for  a  reconciliation 
of  the  traditional  view  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  and 
of  the  modern  critical  hypothesis,  that  the  Hexateuch  arose 
some  six  or  eight  centuries  after  his  time.     Chap.  XIII. 

Since  recent  American  works  on  Old  Testament  history 
and  criticism  from  the  analytical  side  reflect  chiefly  the  Graf- 
Wellhausen  hypothesis  of  the  lateness  of  Hebrew  writing  and 
Hterature,  it  has  been  thought  opportune  to  adduce,  with  such 
degree  of  fulness  as  the  present  subject  admits,  the  argumen- 
tation of  the  so-called  Dillmann-Kittel  school  (broadly  speak- 
ing) in  support  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Old  Testament  religion 
and  institutions  generally.  The  views  of  Dillmann,  Kittel, 
Baudissin,  Koenig,  Klostermann,  Hommel,  Strack,  Oettli,  OrelH, 
Eerdmanns  and  others  ( whose  works  are  not  always  accessible 
to  the  English  reader  and  whose  position  is  constantly  ignored 
by  American  Grafians)  are  presented  briefly  in  the  body  of  the 
book  and  more  especially  in  the  foot-notes  in  a  literal  transla- 
tion or  in  the  original,  when  extreme  accuracy  is  sought.* 

The  discriminating  reader  will  observe  that  a  considerable 
body  of  German  scholars,  dissatisfied  with  the  extremes  of 
Wellhausenism  and  impelled  by  the  wonderful  archaeological 
discoveries  of  recent  years,  entertain  the  view  (even  though 
accepting  som.e  theory  of  the  codes),  that  the  people  of  Israel 
already  in  an  early  period  were  sufiiciently  far  advanced  to  pre- 
pare and  transmit  accurate  records,  like  the  Babylonians  and 
Egyptians,  and  that  the  Pentateuch,  at  least  in  its  underlying 
parts,  is  of  Mosaic  origin. 

There  being  frequent  occasion  to  refer  to  Graf,  Kuenen, 
Wellhausen,  Stade  and  their  followers  in  this  country,  it  is 


A  good  illustration  of  the  one-sidedness  of  the  Grafian  school  is  seen  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  notably  in  the  article  "Hexateuch"  (Wellhausen-Cheyne), 
which,  while  noticing  various  writers  of  inferior  rank,  omits  all  reference  what- 
ever, even  in  the  literature,  to  Dillmann,  the  chief  opponent  of  Wellhausen.  The 
vision  of  not  a  few  American  Grafians  is  equally  narrow.  And  yet  the  great 
French  Semitist,  Joseph  Halevy,  said  of  August  Dillmann:  "II  est  sans  contredit 
le  premier  exegete   de   notre  Steele."      {Revue   Sem.   V,,    p.,    313). 


PREFACE.  VII 

necessary  to  state  that  in  the  interest  of  brevity  the  writer  em- 
ploys the  terms  Grafianism  and  Wellhausenism  as  denoting  a 
system  of  Old  Testament  criticism  and  theology  which  may  be 
characterized  briefly  as  follows.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  the  spontaneous  and  natural  product  of  the  Hebrew 
mind,  specifically  of  the  choice  spirits  of  the. nation  (as  e.  g. 
English  literature  is  an  expression  of  the  spirit  of  the  English 
people  through  their  great  writers)  ;  the  religion  of  Israel  Hke 
that  of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  India,  begins  in  fetishism,  advances 
to  polytheism,  and  by  an  inner  striving  of  the  people  passes  up- 
ward into  monotheism.  The  work  of  the  prophets  forms  indeed 
*'an  integral  part  in  the  progress  of  spiritual  religion,"  but  their 
teachings  are  ''mere  flashes  of  spiritual  insight  lighting  up  for 
a  moment  some  dark  corner".  Gradually,  as  a  result  of  the 
development  of  the  religious  sentiment,  the  Hebrew  people, 
cultivating  their  native  Semitic  instinct  for  religion,  surpass  all 
ancient  races  in  the  purity  of  their  monotheism  and  the  elabo- 
rateness of  their  ritual.  But  their  sacred  books,  though  record- 
ing a  high  conception  of  their  local  deity,  Jehovah,  and  breath- 
ing lofty  sentiments,  especially  in  the  prophets,  are  no  more  en- 
titled to  a  special  divine  inspiration  than  a  Vedic  hymn  or  the 
Homeric  poems.  In  brief  the  Old  Testament  is  a  record  of  the 
evolution  of  the  Hebrew  mind,  and  not  a  revelation  of  the 
divine  mind.  This  naturalistic  movement  assumes  the  form  of 
a  philosophy  of  history  and  of  mind.  Years  ago  Vatke,  the 
forerunner  of  Wellhausen,  taught  that  "religion  is  developed 
in  the  human  spirit  and  finally  comes  to  itself  in  pure  thought, 
so  that  the  development  of  religion  among  a  people  presents 
the  same  spiritual  process  as  the  development  of  thought". 
Adopting  the  psychological  tenet  that  in  the  development  of 
mind  the  emotional  stage  is  first  and  the  reflective  second,  Vatke 
professed  to  be  able  to  trace  in  true  Hegelian  style  the  devel- 
opment of  the  Hebrew  religion  and  of  the  different  codes  and 
documents.  In  this  view  the  objective,  supernatural  factor  in 
revelation  (which  is  thus  no  longer  a  revelation)  is  reduced  to 
the  lowest  limit  or  indeed  entirely  denied,  and  the  subjective, 


VIII  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

psychical  and  purely  human  elements  magnified  out  of  all  pro- 
portion to  their  real  value.  In  short,  nearly  all  that  under  the 
old  view  was  regarded  as  divine,  inspired  and  objective  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  reduced  to  the  merely  natural  and  subjective 
manifestations  of  the  human  mind.  All  is  an  evolution  or  devel- 
opment of  certain  inherent  powers  and  capacities,  and  only  that 
is  accepted  as  historical  which  accords  with  the  events  pre-de- 
termined  by  this  subjective  standard.  No  more  arbitrary,  un- 
critical and  falsely  philosophical  scheme  could  well  be  devised. 

Such  is  Grafianism,  German,  and  American.  It  is  forced 
by  the  nature  of  its  premises  to  regard  as  unhistorical,  un- 
authentic and  incredible  all  Old  Testament  laws,  records  and 
narratives  which  do  not  agree  with  the  preconceived  philosophy. 

In  the  alternative  view,  God  is  in  history  and  directs  its 
course  without  either  being  pantheistically  identijfied  with  the 
world  or  doing  violence  to  the  normal  acts  of  his  creatures. 
God,  as  the  sole  absolutely  independent  person,  as  the  Creator 
of  the  universe  of  mind  and  matter,  subordinates  the  laws  of 
nature  to  his  purpose  and  in  a  perfectly  legitimate  way  influ- 
ences man  endowed  with  a  relatively  independent  personality 
and  thus  held  accountable  as  a  moral  agent.  In  this  way  both 
the  transcendence  and  the  immanence  of  God  in  the  economy  of 
the  world,  and  the  ethical  freedom,  and  accountability  of  man 
are  conserved.  If  we  believe  the  Scriptures  at  all,  it  is  certain 
that  over  the  lower,  temporal  order  of  nature,  there  exists  a 
higher,  spiritual  order.  Conflict,  confusion,  disintegration 
characterize  the  merely  natural  and  human  course  of  events. 
A  higher  unity  is  attained  only  in  the  adjustment  of  human 
affairs  by  the  Infinite  Mind ;  the  finite  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case  is  limited  and  requires  the  interposition  of  the  Infinite. 

Accordingly,  the  writer  hold's  that  since  the  Bible  has  both 
a  divine  and  a  human  side,  the  investigation  of  problems  relat- 
ing to  the  origin,  authenticity  and  transmission  of  the  books,  is 
an  entirely  legitimate  and  indeed  necessary  undertaking.  But 
much  depends  on  the  spirit  and  view-point  of  the  investigator. 
The  theist  and  the  pantheist,  starting  from  different  premises. 


PREFACE.  IX 

reach  of  necessity  different  conclusions.  The  view  entertained 
here  is,  that  a  theistic  conception  of  the  universe  guarantees 
the  rights  and  freedom  of  true  criticism.  Since  Old  Testament 
criticism  in  its  ever  widening  scope  has  come  to  include  every 
kind  of  investigation,  literary,  historical,  psychological,  archaeo- 
logical, comparative  and  philosophical,  and  has  invaded  every 
department  of  thought  in  the  search  for  light  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  writer  refrains  from  using  the  phrase  ''higher  critic" 
as  an  opprobrious  epithet  of  a  particular  school  (however  much 
some  extreme  views  may  have  served  to  bring  the  science  into 
disrepute).  Whoever  inquires  into  the  origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch or  of  any  book  of  the  Bible  is  a  ''higher  critic"  in  one 
sense  or  another. 

The  extent  of  the  author's  indebtedness  to  English,  Ger- 
man and  French  authorities  is  acknowledged,  at  least  in  part, 
in  the  course  of  the  work  and  in  the  Index  of  Authors  at  the 
close.  His  obligations,  however,  to  two  Germ.an  writers  are 
of  such  a  character  as  to  merit  special  notice :  namely  to  Dr. 
Eduard  Koenig,  whose  many  timely  and  judicious  works  on 
the  Old  Testament  have  been  a  constant  guide  and  inspiration ; 
and  to  Dr.  Mark  Lidzbarski,  whose  various  volumes  on  Semitic 
epigraphy  were  of  invaluable  aid  in  the  preparation  of  chapters 
VII  and  IX. 

The  author  desires,  also,  gratefully  to  acknowledge  special 
indebtedness  to  several  American  friends  and  scholars :  to 
Prof.  John  D.  Davis,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Princeton  Theological 
Seminary,  for  valuable  suggestions  on  various  points;*  to 
Prof.  Albert  T.  Clay,  Ph.  D.,  Assyriologist,  Yale  University, 
for  an  examination  of  the  sections  on  Babylonian  and  Canaanite 
literature,  .and  for  expressions  of  opinion  on  topics  in  the  field 
in  which  he  is  an  authority ;  to  Rev.  M.  G.  Kyle,  D.  D.,  Egyp- 
tologist, Philadelphia,  Pa.,  for  reviewing  the  Egyptological  sec- 
tions and  for  the  use  of  a  fac-simile  of  the  so-called  Coffin  In- 
scription (Col.  VI,  Chart)  ;     and  to  the  writer's  colleague  in 

*  Dr.   Davis  writes:     "The  subject  is  a  timely  one,  there  being  enough  recent 
material  to  make  a  new  discussion  opportune." 


X  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  Seminary,  Rev.  George  Stibitz,  Ph.  D.,  D.  D.,  Professor  of 
Old  Testament  Languages  and  Literature  and  Semitic  Philol- 
ogy', for  a  critical  reading  of  the  last  two  chapters. 

In  the  preparation  of  the  Chart  on  the  Origin  of  the  Sem- 
itic Alphabet  (at  the  close  of  the  volume),  liberal  use  was  made 
of  material  supplied  by  Delitzsch,  Lidzbarski,  J.  Euting  and 
C.  J.  Ball. 

It  may  yet  be  noted  that  this  book  is  intended  especially 
for  those  who  study  the  Bible  in  English:  hence  matter  of  a 
purely  technical  character  is  relegated  to  the  several  excursus  or 
to  the  foot-notes.  For  a  similar  reason  it  has  been  deemed  suf- 
ficient to  transliterate  whatever  words  are  reproduced  from  the 
Hebrew,  Aramaic  and  other  Semitic  languages. 

A.  S.  Zerbe. 
Dayton,  O. 

August,  191 1. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   I. 

TWO    THEORIES    OF    THE    ANTIQUITY    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   RELIGION. 

I. 

Fundamental  Problems  of  Old  Testament  Science. 

PAGE. 

1.  Three  Underlying   Problems i 

2.  The  Preservation  and  Transmission  of  the  Old  Testament.    ...  2 

3.  Transmission  of  Early  Hebrew  Literature  and  of  the  Pentateuch.  3 

4.  The  Heart  of  Old  Testament  Criticism 3 

n. 

Two  Theories  of  the  Antiquity  of  Hebrew  Writing  and  Literature. 

A.  Nature  of  Hebrew  Civilization  in  the  Mosaic  Age 5 

1.  A    High    Civilization 5 

2.  A   Low    Civilization 6 

B.  The  State  of  Writing  among  the  Hebrews  at  the  Exodus 7 

1.  Writing  Known  to  the  Hebrews 7 

2.  Writing  not  Known  to  the  Hebrews 8 

C.  Rival  Theories  of  the  Composition  of  the  Pentateuch 9 

1.  The  Traditional  View 9 

( I ) .  Mosaic    Authorship 9 

(2) .  Unity   and    Integrity ID 

2.  The  Anti-Traditional  or  Modern  Critical  View 10 

(i).  Moses  not  the  Author  of  the  Pentateuch 10 

(2) .  Theory  of  the  Codes 12 

a.  The   Jehovistic   Code 12 

b.  The   Elohistic   Code 12 

c.  The  Deuteronomic  Code,  D 12 

d.  The  Law  of  Holiness 13 

e.  The  Priest  Code,  P 13 

f.  Manner  of  Combining  the  Documents 14 

g.  The    Dillmann    Hypothesis 15 

D.  Original  Transmission  of  the  Early  Books 16 

1,  Written    Records 16 

2.  Oral    Tradition 17 

XI 


XII  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

PAGE. 

E.  History,    or    Legend i8 

1.  History,  not  Legend i8 

2.  Legend,  not  History 19 

F.  Relation  of  Law  and  Prophecy 21 

1.  Law  First,  then  Prophecy 22 

2.  Prophecy  First,  then  Law 22 

G.  God,  Man  and  the  Supernatural 23 

HL 

Are  the  Traditional  and  the  Anti-Traditional  Positions  Reconcilable? 

1.  Each  School  Regards  its  Position  as  Established 24 

(i).  Conservatives   Firm  in   their  Attitude 24 

(2).  Grafians  Deem  their  Position  Established  Absolutely.   .  24 

2.  Irreconcilable   Antagonism 25 

3.  Possibility  of  Mediating  Position 26 

CHAPTER  n. 

THE   LOWER   AND  THE    HIGHER  CRITICISM    OF  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT, 

L 

The  Lower  Criticism. 

A.  Criticism  in  General 27 

B.  Kinds    of    Criticism 28 

C.  The  Lower  and  the  Higher  Criticism  in  General 29 

1.  Lower  or  Textual  Criticism 29 

2.  Higher  or  Literary  Criticism 29 

D.  The  Need  of  Textual  Criticism 30 

n. 

The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament. 

A.  Province  of  the  Higher  Criticism 31 

1.  Age   and  Authorship 31 

2.  Integrity 32 

3.  Credibility 32 


CONTENTS.  XIII 

PAGE. 

B.  Higher  Criticism  Illustrated  from  the  Book  of  Joel 33 

1.  The  Style  and  Language 33 

2.  The    Historical    Situation 34 

3.  Inferences  and  Deductions 34 

C.  The  Name  and  Nature  of  the  Science 35 

1.  Literary   Criticism 35 

2.  Historical    Criticism 36 

3.  Literary-Historical  Criticism 36 

D.  The  Method  of  Old  Testament  Higher  Criticism Zl 

1.  The  Literary  Method  or  Argument 37 

( I ) .  Vocabulary  and  Style 37 

(2) .  Value  of  Argument  from  Style 38 

2.  The  Historical  Method  or  Argument 39 

( I ) .  Direct   Inference 39 

(2) .  Proof  from    Subj ect-Matter 40 

(3) .  Argument   from  Anachronisms 40 

(4) .  Argument  from  Silence 41 

a.  Matter  Foreign  to  Plan 41 

b.  Omissions 41 

3.  The  Theological  Method  or  Argument 41 

Cumulative  Value  of  three  Methods 42 

E.  Principles  and  Method  of  Present  Inquiry 42 

First  Principle:    Essential,  not  Absolute  Historical  Certainty.  42 
Second  Principle:    A  Document  Genuine  until  Spuriousness 

Established    43 

CHAPTER  HI. 

THE   SEMITIC  PEOPLE  AND  LANGUAGES. 
I. 

The  People. 

1.  Preliminary  Statements 45 

2.  Character  and  Influence  of  the  Semites 45 

(i).  The  Babylonians 46 

(2) .  The  Assyrians 46 

(3).  The   Aramaeans 46 

(4) .  The   Southern  Semites 47 

(5) .  The    Amorites 47 


XIV  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

PAGE. 

3.  Original  Home  of  the  Semites 47 

4.  Home  of  the  Northern  Semites 48 

5.  Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Semitic  Sources 49 

II. 

Semitic  Languages  and  Systems  of  Writing. 

1.  The  Semitic  Family  of  Languages 49 

2.  The  Hebrew  Language 50 

( I ) .  Origin   of  Hebrew 50 

(2).  Antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  Language 51 

3.  Definition   of  Writing 52 

4.  Excursus:  Cuneiform  or  Babylonian- Assyrian  System  of  Writing.  52 

(i).  General  Character  of  Cuneiform  Script 53 

(2) .  Ideograms   and    Phonograms 53 

(3) .  The  Babylonian  Scribe 54 

(4) .  Priests   as    Scribes 54 

(5).  Babylonian    Syllabaries 55 

5.  Excursus:    Egyptian  Writing 55 

( I ) .  Pictorial   and   Ideographic 55 

(2) .  Phonetic  and  Syllabic  Stage 56 

(3) .  Determinatives 57 

(4) .  Selected  Syllables  or  Letters 57 

(5).  Knowledge  of  Writing  among  the  Common  Peopk.    ..  57 

6.  No  True  Alphabet  Prior  to  the  Phoenician 58 

CHAPTER  IV. 

ANTIQUITY   OF    WRITING    AND  LITERATURE    IN    EGYPT,    BABYLONIA 
AND    CANAAN. 

I. 

Excursus:     Antiquity  of  Egyptian  Writing  and  Literature. 

1.  The  Old   Empire 59 

2.  The  Middle  Empire 60 

3.  The  New   Empire 61 


CONTENTS.  XV 
II. 
Excursus:     Antiquity   of  Babylonian-Assyrian   Literature. 

PAGE. 

A.  Assyrian    Literature .' 6^ 

B.  Babylonian   Literature 62 

1.  Immense    Extent 62 

2.  Poetical    Literature 63 

( I ) .  Creation    Epic ^3 

(2) .  Gilgamash   Epic 63 

(3).  Story  of  the  Deluge 63 

3.  Prose    Literature 63 

( I ) .  Historical   Literature 63 

(2) .  Legal    Literature 64 

The  Hammurabi  Code 65 

(3) .  Epistolary    Literature "•  <^6 

(4) .  Religious    Literature 66 

(5).  Anonymity   of  Babylonian-Assyrian   Literature.    ...  66 

III. 

Civilisation  and  Literature  in  Canaan  in  the  Pre-Mosaic  Period. 

A.  The  Tell  el  Amarna  Tablets 67 

B.  The  Historical  Situation  in  Palestine  in  2500-1400  B.  C 18 

1.  Early  Egyptian   Influence 68 

2.  Semites  in  Palestine 69 

3.  Cassite,  Canaanite  and  Mitannian  Inroads 70 

4.  Egyptian    Supremacy 7i 

C.  A  Native  Palestinian  Literature  from  Early  Times 71 

Amorite  Literature 73 

CHAPTER  V. 

EXTENT    AND    ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    LITERATURE. 

A.  Hebrew  Literature  in  the  David-Josiah  Period 76 

1.  The  Writing  Prophets 76 

2.  Historical    Literature 77 

3.  Poetical    Literature 78 

B.  Hebrew  Literature  in  the  Pre-Davidic  Period 79 

Writing  in  the  Mosaic  Age 80 

C.  The   Problem   of  the   Date   of   Origin  and  Introduction   of  the 

Phoenician    Alphabet 81 

ri 


XVI  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THEORIES    OF   THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PHOENICIAN    ALPHABET. 

PAGE. 

Importance  of  the  Subject 83 

Excursus:     Historical   Resume 84 

1.  The    Phoenician    Origin 84 

(i).  Dissemination  by  the   Phoenicians 84 

(2).  Did  the  Phoenicians  Invent  the  Alphabet?  85 

2.  Eg3'ptian    Origin 85 

( I ) .  Egyptian    Hieratic 85 

(2) .  Egyptian    Hieroglyphic 87 

3.  Hittite  Origin 87 

4.  The  Cuneiform  Hypothesis 89 

( I ) .  The   Neo-Assyrian 89 

(2) .  The  Old  Babylonian 89 

5.  Aramaic    Origin 90 

6.  Cretan  or  Cypriote  Origin 91 

CHAPTER  VII. 

EARLY    SEMITIC   INSCRIPTIONS. 


North-Semitic  Inscriptions.    - 

A.  Semitic  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament 93 

1.  Importance  of  Epigraphy  and  Palaeography 93 

2.  Number   of   Semitic   Inscriptions 03 

3.  Semitic   Inscriptions  in   General 94 

B.  The   Phoenician   Inscriptions 

1.  The  Moabite  Stone 95 

2.  The  Baal  Lebanon  Inscription 96 

3.  Hassan   Bey-li 97 

4.  Nora    Inscriptions 97 

5.  Abu   Simbel 97 

6.  Assyrian   Lion-Weights 98 

7.  Abydos 98 

8.  Byblos 98 

9.  Tabnith  and  Eshmunazar 98 

10.  Deductions 99 


CONTENTS.  XVII 

PAGE. 

C.  The  Aramaic  Inscriptions lOO 

1,  The  Zakar  Inscription loi 

2.  The   Hadad 1^4 

3..  The  Panammu  Inscriptions ic>4 

4.  Bar-Rekub i^S 

5.  Nerab.    106 

6.  Lion-Weight  of  Abydos 106 

7.  Lamas ^^ 

8.  Teima 106 

9.  Characteristics  of  Aramaic  Script 107 

D.  Archaic  Hebrew  Inscriptions    108 

1.  The   Siloam  Inscription 108 

2.  The  Gezer  Calendar  Tablet 109 

3.  The  Jeroboam  Seal 112 

4.  The  Samaria  Ostraca 1 14 

5.  Other  Archaic  Hebrew  Inscriptions 116 

6.  Importance  of  Seals  in  Ancient  Times 116 

(i).  The   Egyptian   Seal ii7 

(2) .  Babylonian    Seal 1^7 

(3).  Hebrew    Seals 118 

7.  Archaic   Hebrew    Seals 118 

(i).  Shemayahu   Seal HQ 

(2).  Obadiah    Seal ii9 

(3).  Shebaniah "9 

(4).  Abijah    Seal ii9 

(5).  Ustinow   Seal "9 

(6).  El-Siggeb  Seal 120 

(7).  Joshua   Seal 120 

(8).  Haggai   Seal 120 

(9)  Hananiahu  Seals 120 

( 10)   Masseyahu   Seal 120 

(11).  Ancient    Scarabaeoid 120 

(12).  The  Hareph  Seal 121 

8.  Other  Early  Hebrew  Seals 121 

9.  Later  Archaic   Hebrew   Inscriptions 121 

E.  Comparison  of  Phoenician,  Aramaic  and  Archaic  Hebrew  Script.  122 

n. 

South-Semitic  or  Arabic  Inscriptions 123 

III 


XVIII  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

INTRODUCTION    OF    THE    PHOENICIAN    ALPHABET    INTO    GREECE. 

PAGE. 

A.  Early  Greek  History  and  Civilization 127 

1.  The   Pre-Hellenic   Period. 127 

2.  Writing  Earlier  than  Inscriptions 127 

3.  Testimony  of  Early  Greek  Authors 128 

4.  The  Cretan  Script 129 

B.  Origin  of  the  Greek  Alphabet 130 

C.  Evidence  of  the  Greek  Inscriptions 131 

1.  The  Abu  Simbel  Record '. 132 

2.  The  Thera  Inscriptions I33 

3.  Summary  of  Results  from  Inscriptions I34 

CHAPTER   IX. 

excursus:      PROVISIONAL    THEORY    OF    THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    SEMITIC 
(PHOENICIAN)      ALPHABET. 

A.  Delitzsch  Theory  of  Babylonian   Origin I37 

B.  Names  and  Forms  of  the  Phoenician  Letters 138 

1.  The  Problem  of  the  Letter-Names 138 

2.  Meaning  of  the  Disputed  Letters I39 

3.  Theories  of  the  Letter-Names  and  Forms. 140 

C.  The  Astro-Mythological  Hypothesis 142 

D.  Semites  and  Semitism  in  Egypt I43 

1.  The  Hyksos  in  Egypt I43 

2.  Egyptian  Language  Semitized i43 

E.  Canaanite- Phoenician  Origin  of  the  Alphabet I44 

1.  The  Phoenicians  in  History I44 

2.  Relation  with  Egypt  in  Early  Times I44 

3.  Bearing  on  Phoenician  Origin i45 

4.  Influence  of  the  Egyptian  Hieratic I45 

5.  The   Abridged   Egyptian    Syllabary 147 

6.  Phoenicians  Drew  from  all  Quarters 147 

7.  Direction  of  Writing I49 

8.  Non-Adoption   of  Phoenician    Script  by   Babylonians   and 

Assyrians ^49 


CONTENTS.  XIX 


CHAPTER  X. 


DATE    OF    ORIGIN    OF    THE    PROTO-PHOENICIAN    AND    THE    PHOENICIAN 
ALPHABET. 

I. 

PAGE. 

Proto-Phoenician  Alphabet,  2000-1500  B.  C 150 

1.  The  Sinai   Scribings 152 

2.  Summary I53 

II. 

Phoenician  Alphabet,  1300  B.  C. 

A.  Principles  of  Alphabetology I54 

1.  Alphabets    Grow i54 

2.  Law  of  Correlative  Variation I54 

3.  Adoption  of  Foreign  Script I55 

4.  No  Absolute  Sameness  of  Development 155 

B.  The  Three  Types  of  the  North-Semitic  Alphabet 156 

C.  Relation  of  North  and  South  Semitic  Alphabets 156 

D.  Origin  of  Semitic   (Phoenician)   Alphabet  circa  1500  B.  C 158 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  SCRIPT  AND  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  EARLY  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS. 

1.  The  Ground  Covered  thus  Far 160 

2.  The  Ground  Still  to  be  Covered 160 

3.  Nature  of  the  Problem 161 

A.  The  Script  Employed  by  the  Hebrews  after  Ezra 162 

1.  Writing   in   Square   Characters 162 

( I ) .  Epigraphic    Testimony 162 

(2).  Testimony  of  Talmudists  and  Fathers 162 

2.  Indeterminateness   of  Date 163 

B.  Phoenician  Script  Employed  by  Hebrews  from  Date  of  Exodus.  163 

I.  The  Script  from  900  to  400  B.  C 163 

( I ) .  Evidence  from  Seals 164 

(2) .  Pre-Exilic    Seals 164 

(3).  Longer  Archaic  Hebrew  Inscriptions 164 

a.  Proof  from  the  Gezer  Calendar  Tablet 165 

b.  Evidence   from   the   Jeroboam    Seal 165 

c.  The   Samaria  Inscriptions 165 


XX  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

PAGE. 

2.  The  Hebrew  Script  between  1350  and  900  B.  C 166 

(i).  A   Suitable   Script  Necessary 167 

(2).  No  Transition  in  the  Script 167 

(3).  Early  Adoption  of  Phoenician  Script 168 

(4).  Phoenician  Script  among  Surrounding  People 168 

(5) .  Moses  and  the  Minaean  Alphabet 169 

(6).  Phoenician  Script  Long  a  Scriptura  Privata  170 

(7).  Phoenician  Alphabet  Known  to  Hebrews  in  Moses- 
Joshua  Age 171 

(8).  How  the  Hebrews  Acquired  the  Phoenician  Script.  .  172 

C.  The  Hebrews  and  the  Egyptian  Language  and  Script 173 

1.  Hebrews  Learned  the  Egyptian  Language  and  Script 173 

2.  Was  the  Egyptian  Script  Employed  in  Writing  Hebrew?  .  173 

3.  Literary  Attainments   of  Moses 174 

4.  Was  the  Law  Originally  Written  in  Egyptian  Hieratic?  . ..  175 

(i).  Size  and  Weight  of  Original  Tablets  of  Law 176 

(2).  No  Evidence  of  the  Use  of  the  Hieratic 177 

D.  The  Hebrews  and  the  Babylonian  Language  and  Script 178 

1.  The  Library  Chest  of  Tell  Taanach 178 

2.  The  Gezer   Cuneiform  Tablets 179 

3.  Babylonian  Language  in  Use  in  Israel 180 

(i).  Babylonian   Language  During   Exile 181 

(2).  Babylonian    Language    among    Hebrews    in    Assy- 
rian   Period 182 

a.  Had  the  Hebrews  ever  a  Hieratic  Script?  183 

b.  Babylonian- Assyrian  Language  in  Israel 184 

c.  Winckler   Hypothesis 185 

(a).  Winckler  on  Isaiah  8:   i 186 

(b).  Winckler  on  Jer.  32 :  10 186 

(3).  No  Babylonian  Influence  in  Early  Regal  Period.   ..  187 

4.  Early  Old  Testament  Books  in  Cuneiform 187 

(i).  Conder's   Argument  from  Proper  Names 188 

(2).  Hebrew  Text  Paraphrased  from  an  Assyrian  Orig- 
inal   189 

5.  Assyrian  and  Hebrew  Languages  Side  by  Side 191 


CONTENTS.  XXI 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    LITERATURE. 
I. 

Hebrew  Civilization  in  the  Pre-Davidic  Period. 

PAGE. 

A.  Are  the  Genesis   Narratives   Sagas  and  Legends,   or  Authentic 

History ?     I93 

B.  Hebrew  Civilization  from  Abraham  to  Joshua 196 

1.  Were  the  Hebrews  Nomads  ?    197 

(i).  Agriculture  in  the  Genesis  Narratives 197 

(2).  The   Hebrews   as    Semi-Nomads 199 

(3).  Tent-Life    in    Semi-Nomadic    State 200 

(4).  The  Agrarian  Laws  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  201 

2.  The  Hebrews  at  the  Exodus  Prepared  for  Mosaic  Legisla- 

tion   202 

Contact   with   Egyptians 202 

C.  Hebrew  Civilization  in  the  Period  of  the  Judges 204 

1.  The  Books  of  Joshua  and  Judges 204 

( I ) .  The    Book   of  Joshua 204 

(2) .  The  Book  of  Judges 205 

2.  Relation  of  Hebrews  and  Canaanites  in  Period  of  Judges.  208 

(i).  Later  Canaanites  Low  Morally  and  Religiously.   ...  209 
(2).  Hebrews  Morally  and  Spiritually  Superior  to  Cana- 
anites   210 

(3).  Hebrew  and  Canaanite  Civilization  Compared 211 

II. 
Books  and  Scribes  in  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  Early  Use  of  the  Word  Book  in  the  Old  Testament 214 

2.  The  Scribe  in  Ancient  Israel 215 

(i).  A  Scribe  or  Writer  in  General 215 

(2).  An    Enroller   or    Muster-Master 216 

(3).  One  Skilled  in  the  Sacred  Books 216 

(4).  The   Shoter 216 

(5).  The  Chartom 217 

(6) .  The    Mazkir 217 

(7) .  The    Tiphsar 217 

(8).  Jeremiah  and  the  Scribe  Baruch 217 


XXII  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

III. 

Literature  in  the  David-Solomon  Period. 

PAGE. 

1.  David's  Lament  over  Sanl  and  Jonathan 218 

2.  David's  Letter  to  Joab 218 

3.  The   Scribe    Seraiah 219 

4.  Psalms  of  David 219 

5.  David's   Last   Prophetic   Words 220 

6.  Other  Writings  of  David 220 

7.  The  History  of  Samuel  the  Seer 221 

8.  The  History  of  Nathan  the  Prophet 221 

9.  The  History  of  Gad  the  Seer 221 

10.  The  Chronicles  of  King  David 222 

11.  The  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon 222 

12.  The  Lost  Proverbs  of  Solomon 222 

13.  Summary 223 

IV. 

Pre-Davidic  Literature. 

1.  The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah 224 

2.  The  Book  of  Jashar 226 

3.  Jotham's  Parable 228 

4.  Writing  in  Gideon's  Age 229 

5.  Deborah's   Triumphal   Ode 230 

6.  The    Marshal's    Staff 232 

7.  Kiriath-Sepher  or  Book-Town 233 

8.  Writing  in  Joshua's   Time 234 

( I ) .  Copying  of  the  Law 234 

(2).  Distribution    of  the    Territory 235 

9.  Literature  in  the  Mosaic  Age 2z6 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE   ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE    (Continued). 

A.  Ancient  Strata  in  the  Pentateuch 238 

1.  Old  Hebrew  Records 238 

2.  Pre-Mosaic    Strata 239 

3.  Abraham  and   Cuneiform   Tablets 240 

( I ) .  Ur  a  Literary  Center 240 

(2).  Religious   Motives   in  the   Migration 241 

(3) .  Early   Sacred    Records 242 

(4) .  Canaanite   Libraries. 244 


CONTENTS.  XXIII 

PAGE. 

4.  The  Antiquity  of  Genesis  XIV 245 

(i).  Identification  of  Persons  and-  Places 246 

(2).  Historic  Background  of  Gen.  XIV 247 

a.  Grafians  Regard  the   Chapter  as  Legendary.    . .  247 

b.  Historical  Character  of  the  Chapter 248 

c.  Early   Babylonian-Canaanite    Source 248 

d.  Abraham  and  Early    (Hebrew)    Records 250 

B.  Written  Sources  of  Sinaitic  Legislation 250 

1.  Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Decalog 251 

2.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant 252 

3.  The  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant 254 

4.  The  Memorial  against  Amalek 254 

5.  The  Song  of  Moses  and  Miriam 255 

6.  The  J  and  E  Codes  Ancient 256 

C.  The  Problem  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 256 

1.  Dilemma   of   Criticism 256 

( I ) .  A  Pious  Fraud 257 

(2).  Imaginative  Revivification  of  the  Past 257 

2.  Language   and   Style 258 

3.  Historical  Situation  that  of  Mosaic  Age 259 

4.  No  Reference  to  Jerusalem 260 

5.  Moses  Represented  as   Author 260 

6.  Antecedent  Probability  of  Mosaic  Basis 261 

7.  Alleged  Anachronisms  and  Contradictions 262 

8.  The  Closing   Chapters 264 

( I ) .  The  Song  of  Moses 264 

(2) .  The  Blessing  of  Moses 265 

9.  Ancient  Strata  in  Deuteronomy 266 

10.  The   Transmission   of  Deuteronomy 267 

D.  The    Problem   of  the   Priest   Code 269 

1.  Graf-Wellhausen   Philosophy  of  History 269 

2.  Graf-Wellhausen  Hypothesis  of  the  Priest  Code 270 

3.  The  Central  Place  of  Worship 271 

4.  Sanctuaries  in  Time  of  the  Judges 273 

5.  Theory   of    Sacrifice 273 

6.  Special  Features  of  the  Priest  Code 274 

(i).  The  Language  and  Style  of  P 274 

(2) .  The   Material   of  P 274 

(3).  The  Literary  Sources  of  the  Priest  Code 275 


XXIV  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

PAGE. 

7.  Arguments  Unfavorable  to  a  Post-Exilic  Date 276 

( I ) .  P  Unsuitable  to  a  Late  Date 276 

(2).  The  Account  in   Neh.  VIII-X 2:]7 

8.  Ezekiel  and  the  Priest  Code 277 

9.  Date  of  the  Priest  Code 278 

(i).  Dilemma  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen   School 278 

(2).  Traces  of  P  in  D  and  other  Books 279 

E.  Summary  on  the  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 

1.  Theory   of  Documents 280 

2.  Codes  Based  on  Ancient  Sources 280 

3.  Pentateuch    Essentially    Mosaic 281 

4.  Employment  of  Scribes  and  Amanuenses 281 

5.  A  Fourfold  Record 282 


r 


rrr-  . 


1 


rrr- 


0--^ 


^H- 


rrr-Q  ^^^ 


'^>M 


J-^^<l 


^  0 


I 
8 


r 


^^ 


\) — 


•rrr- 


./^ 


-7—  m 

o   ^^ 


^ 


0 
0 


P 


^T-^ 


x:^ 


CHAPTER     I. 

TWO  THEORIES  OE  THE  ANTIQUITY  OE  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT  RELIGION. 

I. 

FUNDAMENTAL   PROBLEMS   OE   OLD  TESTAMENT    SCIENCE. 
I.     THREE  UNDERLYING   PROBLEMS. 

At  the  threshold  of  Old  Testament  science  three  fundamen- 
tal questions  demand  consideration:  i,  the  origin,  age  and 
credibility  of  the  various  books;  2,  the  collection  and  accept- 
ance of  the  writings  as  authoritative  and  inspired ;  and,  3,  their 
preservation  and  transmission;  or,  the  problems  of  the  Liter- 
ary, popularly  called,  the  Higher  Criticism;  of  the  formation 
of  the  canon;  and  of  the  Lower,  or  Textual  Criticism.  It  is 
theoretically  possible  to  regard  these  subjects  as  distinct,  but 
practically  they  overlap  at  many  points.  The  question  of  ori- 
gin may  be  treated  from  a  purely  literary  viewpoint,  without 
reference  to,  or  acknowledgement  of,  a  divine  side  in  the  writ- 
ings. It  is  obvious  that  such  a  method  must  issue  in  a  denial 
of  any  distinctively  supernatural  element  in  the  Old  Testament. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  critic  who  accepts  the  theistic  philosophy 
with  all  that  it  implies  in  the  way  of  divine  intervention  in  hu- 
man history,  as  by  revelation  and  inspiration  in  the  special  sense, 
will  see  in  the  Old  Testament  a  consistent  and  perfectly  artic- 
ulated system  of  religion  mediated  by  divinely  chosen  agents. 
In  either  case  a  philosophy  of  history  is  the  point  of  departure 
and  determines  the  result. 

A  man  who  does  not  believe  in  a  special  revelation  from  God 
or  in  the  special  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  must  of 
recessity  regard  the  Old  Testament  as  essentially  an  evolution 
of  the  human  mind.  For  such  a  one  the  second  question,  that 
of  the  canon,  loses  its  distinctive  character  and  is  swallowed 
up  in  the  first  (e.  g.  Ryle  and  Wildeboer).  The  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  under  this  view  (here  regarded  as  false)  are 
not  in  their  nature  specifically  God-derived,  but  came  gradually, 


2  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

through  "the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  to  be  regarded  as 
worthy  of  preservation.  Th-e  problems  of  the  literary  criti- 
cism and  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  are  therefore  of 
a  fundamental  character  and  must  be  solved  one  way  or  an- 
other by  every  serious  student  of  the  Old  Covenant. 

2.     THE   PRESERVATION    AND   TRANSMISSION    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

The  task  before  us  is,  however,  of  a  somewhat  different 
nature.  We  may  ask,  why  the  Christian  world  assumes  the 
undoubted  antiquity  and  essential  correctness  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  How  do  we  know  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, written,  some  of  them,  thirty,  others  twenty-five  cen- 
turies ago,  have  been  transmitted  to  us  in  anything  like  a  pure 
state  ?  The  literary  critic  has  no  little  difficulty  in  showing  that 
we  have  Shakespeare's  Plays  or  Chaucer's  Canterbury  Tales  in 
their  original  form.  These  are  modern  works.  The  argu- 
mentation is  more  complicated  if  we  are  challenged  to  prove 
that  the  Latin  and  Greek  classics,  as  Virgil's  Aeneid  or  Ho- 
mer's Iliad,  were  faithfully  copied  for  a  thousand  years.  Less 
difficult  on  account  of  the  numerous  manuscripts,  but  neverthe- 
less demanding  the  most  accurate  research,  is  the  task  of  ascer- 
taining the  true  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  Old  Testament  problem  is  vastly  more  intricate.  The 
labors  of  the  scribes,  Talmudista  and  Massoretes  in  the  preser- 
vation of  the  Hebrew  Bible  and  the  testimony  of  the  Septuagint 
Version  (285-150  B.  C.)  enable  us  to  determine  the  text  with 
a  considerable  degree  of  assurance  from  the  time  of  Ezra  (458 
B.  C.)  onward.  But  for  the  period  between  David  and  Ezra 
the  material  at  command  for  a  history  of  the  then  existing 
sacred  books  is  scanty  and  indirect.  Unfortunately,  v^e  have 
no  very  ancient  papyrus  or  parchment  rolls,  nor  any  inscrip- 
tions on  stone  or  stucco  containing  the  Old  Testament  or  any 
part  of  it ;  and  the  oldest  extant  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint 
date  from  the  fourth,  and  the  oldest  Hebrew  manuscripts  from 
the  tenth,  possibly  from  the  ninth  century  of  our  era.^  For 
the  period  between  Moses  and  David  we  are  in  a  still  worse 
strait,  so  far  as  concerns  original  and  ancient  sources,  since  not 
even  a  single  verse  is  attested  by  any  tablet  or  inscription  com- 
ing down  from  those  remote  times;  and  the  line  of  proof  is 
exceedingly  difficult  and  involved.     The  question  of  the  pres- 

1  It  is  not  denied  that  by  a  tedious  process  of  indirect  proof  we  can  estab- 
lish the  essential  correctness  and  credibility  of  the  Old  Testament;  the  reference 
in  the  text  is  to  the  non-existence  of  documents  actually  written  in  that  early  age. 


FUNDAMENTAL  PROBLEMS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  SCIENCE.         3 

ervation  and  transmission  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  pre- 
Ezraic  period,  though  uniformly  overlooked  in  recent  books  on 
the  Old  Testament,  is  of  fundamental  importance.  Weakness 
here  is  weakness  along  the  whole  line. 

3.   TRANSMISSION  OF  EARLY  HEBREW  LITERATURE  AND  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

Limiting  ourselves,  however,  to  a  still  narrower  field,  we 
inquire  how  the  early,  or  pre-Davidic  literature  was  preserved 
and  transmitted  originally.  Through  what  channels  could  the 
legislation  of  Moses  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  fairly  correct 
state?  Our  investigation  is  confined  to  the  original  transmis- 
sion and  transcription  of  the  first  half  dozen  books  of  the  Bible. 
Within  this  area  the  underlying  problems,  not  merely  of  the 
Lower,  but  also  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  must  be  settled.  Un- 
less it  can  be  shown  that  scribes,  writing  material  and  a  suitable 
language  and  script  existed  in  the  Mosaic  age,  every  theory  of 
the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Mosaic  age  floats  in 
the  air.  The  existence  of  these  conditions  in  the  age  in  ques- 
tion does  not  of  course  prove  that  Moses  had  any  share  in  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch ;  it  shows  merely  the  external 
possibility;  but  the  non-existence  of  such  conditions  would 
render  the  traditional  view  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  untenable. 
*Tf  the  foundations  be  destroyed,  what  can  the  righteous  do? 
(Ps.  11:3)". 

4.     THE    HEART    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    CRITICISM. 

The  scope  and  gravity  of  the  subject  will  be  apparent  upon 
slight  reflection.  The  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  treat  of 
the  period  from  the  creation  to  the  call  of  Abraham  (circa 
8,000  to  2,000  B.  C.)  ;  the  remaining  chapters  carry  the  narra- 
tive to  the  close  of  the  life  of  Joseph.  Then  come  the  events 
of  the  Exodus.  In  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  the  occu- 
pation of  Canaan  and  the  rule  of  the  Judges,  embracing  the 
whole  period  from  Joshua  to  Samuel,  are  narrated. 

What  proof  have  we  that  the  narratives,  miracles,  revela- 
tions recorded  in  these  seven  books  were  written  down  contem- 
f>oraneously,  or  nearly  so,  with  the  events,  and  not  transmitted 
orally  many  centuries,  and  then  in  a  greatly  modified  form 
reduced  to  writing?  It  is  of  course  important  to  know  that 
in  the  post-Ezraic  period  the  Old  Testament  was  carefully 
guarded,  but  unless  we  have  a  safe  footing  for  the  pre-Davidic 
period  and  can  show  that  the  early  books  (i.  e.  the  assumed 


4  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

early  books)  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  pure  and  authentic 
fonn.  the  very  foundation  is  removed  from  the  whole  super- 
structure. It  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  ascertain  by  what 
process  the  accounts  of  the  creation,  fall,  flood,  call  of  Abra- 
ham, sojourn  in  Egypt,  the  Exodus,  the  giving  of  the  law  and 
the  period  of  the  Judges,  came  to  assume  their  present  form. 
Were  they  transmitted  orally  five  hundred,  or  a  thousand  years, 
or  were  they  reduced  to  writing  at  an  early  date  ?  The  coun- 
try is  flooded  with  books  on  "Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment", "How  We  Got  our  Bible"  and  "Translations  of  the 
Scriptures",  and  so  on,  but  they,  one  and  all,  pass  hurriedly 
over  the  primitive  period  and  describe  minutely  the  transmisr 
sion  of  the  Old  Testament  after  it  had  reached  a  fixed  form  at 
the  hands  of  later  scribes." 

Doubtless  the  chief  reason  why  the  whole  subject  is 
hastily  brushed  aside  by  writers  of  the  conservative  and  radi- 
cal schools  alike,  or  allowed  to  rest  on  mere  assertion,  is  that 
here  we  enter  the  very  heart  of  Old  Testament  criticism,  text- 
ual, literary,  historical  and  comparative,  a  field  in  short,  of 
which  every  inch  is  disputed  territory.  Progress  can  be  made 
only  by  examining  anew  each  contested  point  and  settling  it 
one  way  or  the  other  by  the  weight  of  evidence  and  logical 
inference.  But  even  then  the  difficulty  increases,  for  each 
investigator  approaches  the  subject  with  a  bias  (Hterary,  or 
theological)  and  may  draw  conclusions  deemed  unwarranted 
by  fellow  Vv'orkers  in  the  same  field.  Nevertheless,  the  histor- 
ical, archaeological  and  epigraphical  material  accumulating  in 
recent  years  has  reduced  the  problem  to  more  definite  and  tan- 
gible limits,  and  encourages  the  hope  that  the  transmission  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  may  be  placed  upon  a  more 
scientific  and  satisfactory  basis  than  exists  today. 

The  time  would  seem  to  be  ripe  for  a  somewhat  extended 
consideration  of  the  transmission,  whether  oral  or  written,  of 
the  oldest  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  at  least  a  presenta- 
tion of  the  available  evidence,  for  the  benefit  of  the  general 
student  of  the  Old  Testament  who  may  not  have  the  resources 
at  command  for  a  special  investigation. 

*  Of  what  avail  is  it  to  prove  that  during  the  last  two  thousand  years  the 
O.  T.  has  been  faithfully  preserved,  if  we  are  unable  to  show  even  in  general 
terms,  how  the  Hebrews  originally  obtained  and  transmitted  the  early  O.  T.  books' 


ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING    AND    LITERATURE.  5 

11. 

TWO    THEORIES    OF    THE    ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING    AND 

LITERATURE. 

At  the  outset  we  encounter  two  extreme  and  contradictory 
theories  of  the  antiquity  of  Hebrew  writing  and  literature. 
Before  the  rise  of  the  so-called  Higher  Criticism  it  was  held 
almost  universally  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch.  In  re- 
cent times,  however,  the  view  has  been  advanced  and  is  accept- 
ed by  a  large  body  of  scholars,  that  Moses  practically  had  Httle 
or  no  share  in  the  composition  and  writing  of  the  Pentateuch. 
It  is  allowed  that  he  was  an  historical  personage  and  probably 
promulgated  a  system  of  laws;  but  it  is  denied  that  the  extant 
Pentateuch  emanated  from  him.  To  understand  the  nature 
and  scope  of  the  problem,  it  is  necessary  to  state  these  opposing 
theories  somevv^hat  in  detail.^ 

A.     NATURE   OF    HEBREW    CIVILIZATION    IN    THE    MOSAIC    AGE. 

I.   A  High  Civilisation. 

On  the  one  hand  it  is  maintained  that  the  Hebrews  at  the 
Exodus  had  a  tribal  government,  fixed  institutions  and  trained 
leaders,  and  were  far  advanced  in  the  arts  of  that  day  and  the 
elements  of  ancient  civilization.  The  Egyptians  were  at  that 
time,  as  they  had  been  for  centuries,  among  the  most  cultured 
of  ancient  nations;  and  it  is  affirmed  that  the  apt  and  quick- 
witted Hebrews  must  have  assimilated  the  best  elements  of 
Egyptian  culture  and  civilization.  This  view  is  defended  by 
a  large  body  of  modem  scholars.  Thus  Hengstenberg,  deny- 
ing that  the  Hebrews  led  a  nomadic  life  in  Egypt,  says :  "The 
foundation  of  the  settled  life  was  laid  in  the  very  first  settle- 
ment. It  was  in  the  best  and  most  fruitful  part  of  the  land 
that  the  Israelites  received  their  residence,  at  least  in  part,  Gen. 
47:  II,  27.  It  is  inconceivable  that  they  should  not  have  taken 
advantage  of  the  excellent  opportunity  for  agriculture  which 
presented  itself;  and  to  participation  in  Egyptian  agriculture 
was  added  participation  in  Egyptian  civilization"  (Kingd.  God 
under  O.  T.,  I,  2^6).  H.  Ewald  writes:  "When  it  is  related 
that  Joseph  obtained  in  marriage,  Asenath,  a  daughter  of  Po- 

'  In  the  absence  of  an  entirely  satisfactory  nomenclature,  we  employ  the 
terms  traditional  or  conservative,  and  anti-traditional  or  radical  for  the  two 
schools  and  stand-points.  Lyman  Abbott  suggests  the  terms,  ancient,  theological, 
traditional  for  the  one  school,  and  modern,  scientific,  literary  and  evolutionary 
for  the  other.     (Life  and  Lit.   of  the  Ancient  Hebrews). 


6  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

tiphera,  Priest  of  On;  and  that  Moses  was  brought  up  by  a 
dau£;hter  of  Pharaoh  and  therefore  learned  in  all  the  wisdom 
of  Egypt;  when  even  Joseph's  Egyptian  title  of  rank  and 
office'^is  very  faithfully  preserved,  Gen.  41  :  45,  we  have  every 
reason  to  see  in  this  only  a  few  striking  reminiscences  of  the 
strong  influence  of  a  people  of  ancient  culture  and  established 
government  upon  a  less  cultivated  nation  associated  with  them" 
(Hist.  Isr.  II,  4).  Other  writers,  German  and  English,  occupy 
the  same  view-point.* 

2.    A  Lozv  Civilisation. 

The  other  extreme,  briefly  stated,  is  that  the  Israelites  at 
the  date  of  the  Exodus  and  in  the  three  following  centuries 
stood  low  in  the  scale  of  civilization  and  were  largely  dependent 
on  the  Canaanites  for  advancement  in  the  arts.  E.  Reuss  un- 
equivocalh  affirms  that  the  Hebrews  at  the  Exodus  were  a 
rude  horde.  "Above  all  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  re- 
ject the  view  which  represents  the  Israelites  as  constituting 
a  body  of  people  well  organized,  with  a  political  constitu- 
tion, a  central  government  and  enforced  laws.  Nothing  of 
all  this  existed  at  first,  and  it  is  only  little  by  little  that  these 
products  of  civilization  affected  a  people  whose  physical  con- 
dition presented  a  sense  of  need"  (Histoire  des  Israelites). 
J.  Wellhausen  affirms  that  it  is  ''quite  incapable  of  proof 
that  Moses  was  indebted  to  the  Egyptian  priests  for  certain 

advantages   of   personal   culture The    story    of 

Exodus  j:  i  is  a  mythus  of  frequent  recurrence,  to  which 
no  further  significance  is  attached ;  that  Moses  was  trained 
in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians  is  vouched  for  by  no  ear- 
lier authority  than  Philo  and  the  New  Testament"  (Fro- 
leg.  z.  Gesch.  Is.,  410).  B.  Stade,  a  leading  exponent  of  the 
anti-traditional  view,  denies  in  his  History  of  the  People  of 
Israel  and  in  his  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  that 
the  activity  of  Moses  was  in  any  way  influenced  by  the  culture 
of  the  Egyptians.** 

Dr.  F.  Hommel  writes:    "It  is  a  cardinal  article  of  belief 

*  Thus  R.  Kittel:  "Arabia  at  that  time  was  the  home  of  comparatively  set- 
tled people,  with  strongholds,  towns  and  warlike  chiefs.  The  mode  of  living  was 
by  no  means  lacking  in  advanced  education  and  culture;  but  was  thoroughly  sat- 
urated with  the  elements  of  Babylonian  and  no  doubt  also  of  Egyptian  life  and 
thought"  (Babyl.  Excav.  and  Early  Bib.  Hist.,  p.,  6). 

•  In  the  latter  work  he  says:  "The  contact  of  the  Hebrew  Beduins  in  the 
border  province  of  Goshen  with  Egyptian  culture  and  cults  was  too  brief,  and  the 
national  haired  between  Egyptians  and  Hebrews  too  great,  to  admit  of  the  al- 
leged influence"   (p.,  38). 


ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING    AND    LITERATURE.  7 

among  modern  critics  of  the  Pentateuch  that  the  Hebrews  of 
pre-Mosaic  times  were  uncivilized  nomads.  .  .  whose  reUg- 
ion  consisted  of  ....  a  mixture  of  fetishism  and  Totemism. 
This  view  of  the  early  beginnings  of  the  Hebrew  faith  is  one 
of  the  most  vital  factors  in  Wellhausen's  system ;  it  is  at  once 
the  necessary  conclusion  to  which  his  theories  lead,  and  the 
actual  basis  and  assumption  on  which  they  rest"  (Anc.  Heh. 
Trad.,  p.,  28). 

B.     THE  STATE  OF  WRITING  AMONG  THE  HEBREWS   AT  THE  EXODUS. 

Here  again  we  have  two  rival  theories,  the  one  affirming, 
the  other  denying,  that  writing  was  known  to  the  Hebrews  at 
the  Exodus. 

I.    Writing  Knozi<n  to  the  Hebrezvs. 

The  great  German  scholar,  Ewald,  in  his  History  of  Is- 
rael, supports  in  detail  the  view  that  the  Hebrews  were  familiar 
with  writing  in  the  Mosaic  age.  'Tt  cannot  be  doubted  that 
the  Israelites  could  write  during  the  time  of  their  sojourn  in 

Egypt Only  what  was  then  written  in  Israel  canr 

not  have  been  very  important  —  at  any  rate  we  have  no  trace 

of  it As  to  the  Mosaic  age,  the  most  various  and 

earliest  reminiscences  concur  in  representing  it  to  have  pos- 
sessed the  familiar  use  of  writing.  The  two  stone  tables  of 
the  law  are  according  to  all  evidences  and  arguments  to  be 
ascribed  to  Moses;  but  as  the  art  of  writing  certainly  cannot 
have  commenced  with  the  hardest  writing-materials,  nor  its 
use  been  restricted  to  a  few  words  on  one  single  occasion,  the 
unquestionable  historical  existence  of  these  tables  necessarily 
implies  a  diffusion  of  the  knowledge  of  writing  among  the 
more  cultivated  portion  of  the  people"  (II  p.,  48).  Prof.  W. 
H.  Green,  of  Princeton,  writes :  "If  anything  can  be  established 
by  historical  and  monumental  evidence,  the  law  surely  can  be, 
which  was  graven  on  stones  that  were  still  extant  in  the  time 
of  Solomon"  (Heb.  Feasts,  p.,  169).^ 

A  large  and  influential  group  of  scholars  are  certain  that 
the  Hebrews  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the  art  of  writ- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  Exodus. 

•  So  to  the  same  effect:  C.  F.  Keil,  Bib.  Archaeol.  ii,  260;  A.  H.  Sayce, 
Lex  Mosaica,  p.,  6,  and  other  works;  E.  C.  Bissell,  Bib.  Anttq.,  p.,  14;  A.  J.  F. 
Behrends,  O.  T.  under  Fire,  18;  J.  Orr,  Problem  of  the  O  T.  and  Btble  under 
Trial,  p.,   127. 


8  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

2.    Writing  not  Knozun  to  the  Hebrews. 

On  the  other  hand  an  equally  large  and  certainly  more 
boastful  school  confidently  affirm  that  writing  was  not  known 
at  all  among  the  Hebrews  of  that  period,  or  at  any  rate  was  not 
sufficiently  far  advanced  for  literary  purposes. 

E.  Reuss,  though  not  absolutely  denying  to  Moses  a  know- 
ledge of  writing,  is  disposed  to  question  it.  ''Even  if  Moses 
were  highly  educated,  the  Phoenician  script  was  unknown  in 
Egypt.  Besides,  no  one  writes  books  and  laws  except  for 
people  who  can  read  and  do  read.  Even  allowing  that  Moses 
could  write,  the  question  arises  for  whom  he  could  have  writ- 
ten. Certainly  not  for  his  herdsmen,  who  living  in  Goshen 
could  scarcely  have  had  opportunity  to  practise  reading;  the 
Levites  stood  practically  on  the  same  plane"  (Gesch.  d.  Heil. 
Sch.,  p.,  134).  Reuss  pertinently  asks,  what  script  Moses 
could  have  employed?  If  the  Egyptian,  then  his  successors 
must  at  some  later  date  have  exchanged  it  for  the  Phoenician. 
If  the  Phoenician,  then  we  ask,  whether  he  acquired  a  know- 
ledge of  it  in  Eg}^t  (of  which  we  have  no  evidence)  or  wheth- 
er he  perhaps  invented  it  and  carried  it  to  the  Phoenicians  ?  In 
either  case  we  are  involved  in  a  dilemma. 

W.  Vatke,  the  father  of  the  philosophic  presuppositions  of  the  rad- 
ical criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  true  Hegelian  style,  denies  on 
a  priori  grounds  that  Moses  had  a  knowledge  of  writing,  claiming  that 
such  a  view  contravenes  the  laws  of  the  evolution  of  history.  He 
accordingly  concludes  that  the  Hebrews  at  the  Exodus  were  illiterate 
nomads  and  of  course  had  no  knowledge  of  writing  (Relig.  d.  A.  T., 
p.,  179).  Cornill  says:  "In  the  sense  in  which  the  historian  speaks  of 
knowing,  we  know  absolutely  nothing  about  Moses.  All  original 
records  are  missing ;  we  have  not  received  a  line,  not  even  a  word, 
from  Moses  himself,  or  from  any  of  his  contemporaries;  even  the 
celebrated  Ten  Q)mmandmenfts  are  not  from  him,  but,  as  can  be  proved, 
were  written  in  the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century  B.  C.  The  oldest 
accounts  of  Moses  are  five  hundred  years  later  than  his  time"  {Proph. 
Israel,  p.,  17).  Prof.  C.  F.  Kent  writes:  "About  the  same  time  [i.  e. 
the  ninth  century]  the  Hebrew  system  of  writing,  which  seems  to  have 
been  an  inheritance  through  the  highly  civilized  Canaanites  and  Phoeni- 
cians, appears  for  the  first  time  to  have  come  into  use.  Pioneers  strugg- 
ling for  homes  have  little  need  or  time   for  literary  pursuits 

The  conditions  were  first  developed  among  the  Hebrews  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  monarchy"  {Nar.  Begin.  Heb.  Hist.,  p.,  18). 

The  same  position  is  held  by  most  writers  of  the  left  wing 
of  the  anti-traditional  school."^ 


'  See  W.  R.  Smith,  O.  T.  in  Jewish  Church,  297;  Ruess,  op.  cit.,  96;  R. 
Smend,  Alttcst.  Religionsgesch..  pp.,  9,  42;  Nowack,  Heb.  Archaeol.,  2S7;  Ben- 
ringer,   Heb.   Archaeol.,   288.     Also   2.   Aufl. 


ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING    AND    LITERATURE.  9 

C.     RIVAL    THEORIES    OF    THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

Running  parallel  with  the  preceding  contradictory  views 
are  two  rival  theories  of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
of  the  immediately  following  books,  theories  which  have  called 
forth  a  spirited  controversy.  This  controversy,  carried  on 
during  the  past  half  century  and  unquestionably  the  greatest 
and  most  significant  of  modern  times,  is  designated  variously 
as  ''Pentateuch  Criticism",  "Hexateuch  Criticism",  or  **Liter- 
ary  and  Historical  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament".  We  state 
the  issue  in  the  simplest  terms. 

J.    The  Traditional   View. 

Until  within  a  comparatively  recent  period,  Moses  was  almost  uni- 
versally regarded  as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  substantially  as  it 
exists  today.  It  was  allowed  that  he  may  have  used  documents  and 
employed  amanuenses;  but  his  approval  of  what  the  latter  wrote,  would 
render  the  work  practically  his  own.^  It  is  further  alleged  that  Moses 
had  access  to  genealogical  tables,  ancient  records  and  even  tablets  in  the 
cuneiform  script  brought  by  Abraham  from  Ur  of  the  Ohaldees  and 
containing  the  essential  data  of  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis, 
Assuming  that  Moses  was  competent  to  write  a  book  and  that  he 
wished  to  record  God's  wonderful  dealings  with  the  chosen  people,  a 
large  body  of  scholars  hold  what  mav  be  called  the  traditional  view 
of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(i).  Mosaic  Authorship.  Dr.  E.  C.  Bissell  says :  "The  positive  and 
often  repeated  claim  made  in  the  Pentateuch  itself  for  the  Mosaic 
authorship  in  general  has  not  only  the  emphatic,  if  somewhat  exagger- 
ated, external  support  of  all  authorities  from  his  day  downward,  but 
also  the  incidental  corroboration  of  a  multitude  of  internal  characteris- 
tics appropriate  to  his  2igt"{The  Pent.,  p.  78).  The  uncompromising 
champion  of  the  Mosaic  authorship,  the  late  Dr.  W.  H.  Green,  writes: 
'The  Pentateuchal  Law  claims  in  the  most  unambiguous  manner  to 
have  been  given  and  recorded  bv  Moses.  The  general  character  of 
the  legislation,  and  the  terms  in  which  it  is  conveyed,  accord  with  this 
claim Under  any  other  view,  the  question  must  remain  unan- 
swered or  land  us  in  the  most  incredible  of  paradoxes"  (Moses  and 
Prophets,  p.  344).  Writers  of  this  school  make  much  of  the  language 
of  Christ:  "Christ's  authority  is  as  vital  an  element  in  the  settlement 
of  controverted  matters  respecting  the  Old  Testament  as  is  the  science 
of  history  or  the  science  of  language.  The  appeal  to  Him  in  these  Old 
Testament  questions  really  corresponds  to  a  reference  to  an  axiom  in 
mathematics,  or  to  a  first  principle  in  morals"  (Dr.  Liddon,  Worth  of 
O.  T.,  p.,  12).  The  Pulpit  Commentary  says:  "That  the  Pentateuch 
is  what  it  claims  to  be  i.  e.  of  Mosaic  origin,  and  given  by  inspiration 
of  God,  is  here  assumed.    The  book  was  according  to  the  account  it 


*  Various  passages  originally  of  an  editorial  character,  as  Gen.  12:  6,  8;  13:  3; 
36:  31;  Ex.  16:  35;  Deut.  17:  14-20;  34:  5-12,  etc.,  are  held  to  have  been  in- 
serted later  by  competent  authority. 


lO  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

gives  of  itself  in  the  first  instance  compiled  and  written  out  by  Moses" 
(Introduction).^ 

(2).  Unity  and  Integrity.  The  Mosaic  authorship  implies  of  course 
the  unity  and  integrity  of  the  Pentateuch.  But  some  \vho_  deny  that 
the  Pentateuch  proceeded  from  Moses  allow  that  the  composite  work  is 
characterized  by  unity  of  plan  and  purpose.  As  employed  by  conser- 
vatives, the  term  unity  means  the  unity  which  springs  from  samenessof 
authorship  and  integrity  the  oneness  and  organic  coherence  which 
spring  from  a  plan  consciously  formed  and  executed,  and  not  the  gen- 
eral unity  which  may  exist  between  documents  composed  in  different 
centuries  and  possessing  some  similarity  of  matter  and  form.  _  The 
traditionalists  are  not  satisfied  with  a  unity  of  the  latter  sort,  but  insist 
stoutly  that  the  Pentateuch  is  characterized  by  such  a  remarkable  degree 
of  unity  and  integrity  as  to  exclude  the  theory  of  diversity  of  author- 
ship." 

2.    The  Anti-Traditional  or  Modern  Critical  Viezv. 

The  liberal  critics  affirm  that  the  Hebrews  were  not  in  a  position 
to  cultivate  literature  in  the  Exodus  period  and  that  Moses  did  not 
write  or  compose  the  Pentateuch.  They  hold  that  the  Hexateuch  (1.  e. 
the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua)  was  compiled  from  various  documents 
which  arose  gradually  some  six  or  eight  centuries  after  Moses  and 
professed  to  describe  the  early  Hebrew  history  and  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions. These  separate  booklets  or  documents,  drawn  up  largely  on 
the  basis  of  oral  tradition,  received  additions  from  age  to  age  until 
about  445  B.  C,  when  a  redactor  or  editor,  taking  the  latest  and  most 
systematic  of  these  documents  as  a  skeleton  or  outline,  and  selecting 
from  the  different  sources  whatever  accorded  with  his  plan,  brought 
together  the  scattered  material  into  the  composite  whole  known  as  the 
Hexateuch.  This  conclusion,  presented  here  in  the  briefest  terms,  the 
Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen  school  regard  as  established  absolutely  and 
without  a  peradventure  as  the  result  of  the  critical  examination  of  the 
literary  strata,  the  historical  setting  and  the  theological  implications 
of  the  Hexateuch.  The  chief  exponents  are  Reuss,  Graf,  Kuenen, 
Wellhausen,  Stade,  Cornill,  Holzinger,  Driver,  Cheyne,  Ryle,  Briggs, 
and  W.  R.  Harper.  We  summarize  the  arguments  of  a  few  of  these 
critics. 

(i).  Moses  not  the  Author  of  the  Pentateuch.  We  present,  first, 
the  negative  attitude,  or  the  special  considerations  tending  to  show  that 
Moses  could  not  have  written  the  Pentateuch ;  and,  second,  the  positive 
or_  constructive  arguments  of  the  divisive  critics,  or  their  theory  of  the 
origin  and  nature  of  the  Codes. 

»  See  also:  W.  H.  Green,  Higher  Crit.  Pent,  p.,  32,  Unity  of  Genesis,  O.  T. 
Canon,  etc.;  D.  Mac  Dill,  Mosaic  Authorship  Pent.,  p.,  257;  Behrends,  op.  cit 
p.,  18;  G.  Vos,  Mosaic  Orig.  Pent.  Codes,  263;  J.  W.  Beardslee,  Introd.  to  Old 
Test.,  31;    J.   H.   Raven,  O.    T.  Introduction,  pp.,   85-128. 

30  "They  fthe  divisive  critics]  explain  the  unity  of  plan  by  the  skill  of  the 
final  redactor  and  by  his  using  the  Priest  Code,  the  most  systematic  and  complete 
of  the   documents   as   tlie  basis   of   his  complete  work.      But   this   explanation   is   in- 

suflficient It   is   claimed   that   the   difficulties   of  accepting  the  story   of  its 

origin  which  has  been  made  for  us  by  the  keen  critical  insight  of  a  century  of 
criticism,  tax  our  credulity  far  more  than  the  traditional  view.  This  plan  presents 
a  mountain  of  difficulty  for  every  mole  hill  which  it  removes  and  to  all  its  spe- 
cious arguments   we   reply,   non  sequitur"    (J,   H,   Raven,   op.   cit.,   p.,    128). 


ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING    AND    LITERATURE.  II 

It  is  generally  conceded  by  the  anti-traditionalists  that  Moses  had 
some  connection  with  the  religion  of  Israel,  but  how  much  is  a  matter 
of  dispute.  Extremists  regard  him  as  a  mythical  character,  but  this 
opinion  is  not  shared  by  the  critics  generally.  The  latter  adopt  some 
such  view  as  that  of  Kuenen,  who,  while  denying  that  Moses  wrote  a 
systern  of  laws,  assumes  that  an  important  place  belongs  to  Moses  in 
thie  history  of  his  nation.  His  chief  concern  was  to  emphasize  the 
national  religion  and  to  speak  in  the  name  of  Jehovah.  iPractically  all 
that  he  did  was  to  show  that  Jehovah  was  Israel's  God'  and  Israel 
Jehovah's  people.  The  Ten  Commandments  proceeded  from'  Moses  in 
the  sense  that  "in  the  name  of  Jehovah  he  prescribed  to  the  Israelitish 
tribes  such  a  law  as  is  contained  in  the  Ten  Words",  but  not  in  the 
sense  that  he  received  them  from  Jehovah  at  Sinai,  or  that  the  words 
actually  spoken  by  him  are  the  same  as  those  in  the  Pentateuch  (Relig- 
ion of  Israel. J.^"^ 

Wellhausen  regards  the  religion  of  Israel  as  a  natural  development, 
hence  little  is  left  for  the  activity  of  Moses.  "The  religion  of  Israel 
is  a  slow  growth  out  of  heathenism;  this  is  the  substance  of  the  his- 
tory       It  did  not   start  with   an  absolute  beginning"    {Is.   und 

lued.  Gesch.,  p.  34).  Ancient  Israel  had  a  few  laws  for  the  ordering 
of  life,  but  "they  were  not  fixed  in  writing"  (Proleg.  p.  401).  The 
view-point  of  the  extreme  critics  is  voiced  by  Cheyne :  "The  question- 
ing spirit  revives  when  one  is  asked  to  believe  that  Moses  is  partly  at 
least  a  historical  figure.  Alas!  how  gladly  could  one  believe  it!  But 
where  are  the  historical  elements?  ....  Happily  we  are  not  asked 
to  believe  either  in  Moses  or  the  decalogue"  (Introd.  to  R.  W.  Smith's 
Proph.  Israel). 

The  modern  critical  position  is  that  Deuteronomy  does  not  proceed 
from  Moses.  According  to  Graf,  "The  composition  of  Deuteronomy  in 
the  age  of  Josiah  is  one  of  the  most  generally  accepted  results  of  the 
historical  criticisms  of  the  O.  T.  for  all  who  do  not  simply  ignore  these 
results"  {Gesch.  Buech.  11).  Dr.  W.  R.  Harper  says:  "We  may 
safely  deny  the  ascription  to  Moses  of  literary  work  of  any  kind,  even 
the  songs  with  which  his  name  is  connected  {e.  g.  Ex.  15:  1-15;  Deut. 
32:  1-45;  33:  2-29)  or  the  judgments  and  precepts  of  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  and  the  decalogues  of  E  and  J"  {Amos  and  Hosea  p. 
LXXXVI). 

Duhm  states  the  position  of  the  school  in  a  nut-shell :  "Nothing  in 
fact  is  simpler  than  the  Grafian  Hypothesis :  it  needs  only  the  trans- 
ference of  a  single  source,  namely  the  Priest  Code,  into  the  post-Exilic 
time,  into  the  period  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  at  one  stroke  the 
Mosaic  period  is  wiped  out".^'  The  reader  will  see  that  this  is  the  most 
revolutionary  movement  of  the  age." 

"  Reuss  says:  "We  are  compelled  to  affirm  concerning  the  state  of  literature, 
that  the  only  remains  are  fragments  of  poetry,  which  chance  has  spared  from 
oblivion,  and  certain  occasional  allusions  found  in  later  historical  narratives.  .  .  _ . 
We  affirm  that  we  do  not  possess  a  single  historical  work  in  the  authentic  form  in 
which  it  left  the  hand  of  its  author"  (Histoire  des  Israelites,  874). 

"  See  also  Holzinger:  "We  have  no  work  of  Moses,  but  a  narrative  from  a 
later  period"  (EinL,  p.,  7);  "If  anything  is  certain  in  O.  T.  criticism  it  is  that 
the  Pentateuch  is  not  from  the  hand  of  Moses;  he  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  an 
author"    (Marti,    Gesch.    58).     "If    Moses    wrote    the    Pentateuch,    neither    he    nor 


12  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

(2).  The  Theory  of  the  Codes.  The  modern  critical  view  of  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  the  theory  of  the  Codes,  has  assumed 
various  forms,  but  in  broad  outline  is  as  described  below.  Various 
distinct  documents,  it  is  alleged,  underlie  the  Pentateuch,  or  rather  the 
Hexateuch,  for  the  critics  find  the  same  strands  in  Joshua  as  in  the 
Pentateuch  and  include  it  in  the  discussion. 

a.  The  J  Code.  The  first  of  these  documents,  known  as  J,  from 
its  use  of  the  word  Jehovah  for  God,  is  assumed  to  have  originated  in 
the  Southern  Kingdom,  Judah,  about  850-650  B.  C.  The  style  is  free, 
picturesque,  poetical,  anthropomorphic  and  predictive.  "Of  all  the 
Hebrew  historians  whose  writings  have  been  preserved  to  us,  J  is  the 
most  gifted  and  the  most  brilliant.  He  excels  in  the  power  of  delineat- 
ing character"  (Driver,  Gen.  XIV.).  Since  the  writer  assumes  to 
know  and  reveal  the  plans  of  God  and  to  think  for  Him  {e.  g.  Gen.  2: 
18-24;  6:  1-7)  this  document  is  regarded  as  distinctly  prophetic.  The 
critics  now  hold  that  J  is  a  composite  work  starting  with  a  nucleus  J 

1     2 
and    receiving  additions   J,    J,    etc.,    from   many   hands    during   several 
centuries." 

h.  The  E  Code.  The  second  document,  designated  by  the  letter 
E,  from  its  use  of  Elohim  for  God,  is  supposed  to  have  been  compiled 
in  the  Northern  Kingdom  about  800-700  B.  C.  In  general  character  the 
original  author  of  E  does  not  differ  widely  from  J,  "but  he  does  not 
exhibit  the  same  rare  literary  power,  he  does  not  display  the  same 
command  of  language,  the  same  delicacy  of  touch,  the  same  unequalled 
felicity  of  representation  and  expression"  (Driver,  Gen.,  p.,  XV).  The 
stand-point  of  E  is  prophetical,  though  it  is  not  brought  so  prominently 
forward  as  in  J,  "and  in  general  the  narrative  is  more  objective,  less 
consciously  tinged  by  ethical  reflection  than  that  of  J"  (Driver,  Lit. 
III).  "The  general  historical  situation  of  the  writers  seems  to  be  the 
same  as  in  the  case  of  J,  namely,  the  period  of  the  monarchy.  But  the 
general  stand-point  of  E  is  unanimously  conceded  to  be  more  advanced 
than  that  of  J"  (W.  R.  Harper.  Amos  &  Hosea,  p.,  LXXIX)." 

c.  The  Dcuteronomic  Code,  D.  Another  document,  consisting 
mainly  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  is  designated  in  critical  circles  by 

1  2          3         1 

D.  D  denotes  the  kernel  out  of  which  D  grew;  D,  D,  D,  denote 
later  additions  and  changes.  Deiiteronomist  means  the  author  of  the 
body  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  whether  merely  chs,  12-26  inclu- 
sive, according  to  some  critics,  or  chs.  5-26,  according  to  others.  The 
term  Deutcronomic  is  applied  to  material  in  the  body  of  Deuteronomy; 

any  other  for  him  took  the  usual  method  of  securing  credit  for  his  work"  (H.  G. 
Mitchell,   World  before  Abraham,  p.,  4). 

"  Our  apology  for  quoting  chiefly  from  German  authorities  is  that  they  are 
ihc  Jons  et  orxgo  of  the  whole  modern  critical  movement.  Even  the  most  inde- 
pendent of  their  American  followers  and  imitators  draw  their  inspiration  and  ar- 
guments from  the  Germans. 

"  A  few  of  the  J  passages  in  Gen.  are:  chap.  2:  4  to  the  end  of  ch.  4;  5:  29; 
6:   \-T\    7:   i-s,  7-12,    16,    17,  22,  23;    8:   2,   3,  6-12,  20-22;    9:  20-27. 

^'  The  Dillmann  school,  however,  hold  that  the  stand-point  of  J  is  the  more 
advanced.  The  letters  J,  E,  P,  D,  etc.,  in  the  nomenclature  of  criticism  stand 
indefinitely  for  both  the  author  and  the  document.  It  is  well  that  such  is  the  case, 
for  with  all  the  resources  of  scholarship,  the  critics  have  not  ventured,  except  in 
a  few  instances,  to  suggest  who  the  mysterious  writers  may  have  been;  hence  the 
arbitrary   symbols. 


ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING   AND   LITERATURE.  1 3 

and  Deiiteronomistic  to  material  wherever  found  in  the  style  of  the 
Deuteronomist.  Various  editors  who  are  assumed  to  have  revised 
Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  etc.  or  their  constituent  parts,  in  the 
spirit  of  D,  are  denoted  by  R.  Here  the  critical  hypothesis  of  addi- 
tions, modifications,  redactions,  and  numerous  strata  is  in  full  bloom. 

In  determining  the  date  of  D,  the  critics  start  with  the  account  of 
the  memorable  discovery  of  "the  book  of  the  law"  in  the  Temple  in 
the  eighteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  621,  B  C,  as  narrated  in 
2  Kgs.  22:  3-20.  Josiah's  law-book  is  alleged  to  be  identical  with  D. 
"It  cannot  be  shown  to  have  included  more  than  Deuteronomy"  (Driv- 
er, Deut,  p.,  XLV).  How  much  earlier  than  621,  D  was  composed  is 
a  matter  of  dispute  among  the  divisive  critics,  the  dates  ranging 
between  721  and  621.  Cornill  says:  "Shortly  before  621";  Driver, 
"either  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  or  the  early  years  of  the  reign  of  Josiah", 
Steuernagel,  "between  720  and  650".^^ 

d.  The  Laiv  of  Holiness,  H.  Another  document,  known  as  the 
Law  of  Holiness  (Levit.  17-26),  is  designated  by  H.  It  was  a  compila- 
tion from  earlier  sources,  but  in  its  present  form  contains  additions  by 
the  editor  who  incorporated  it  in  the  Priest  Code.  On  account  of  its 
affinities  with  D,  the  Priest  Code  proper  and  Ezekiel  40-48,  the  analysts 
are  perplexed  as  to  the  date  and  the  circle  of  authorship.  Driver  places 
it  shortly  before  the  Exile,  Cornill  in  the  second  half  of  the  Exile,  and 
Holzinger  immediately  after  the  Exile.  "Its  sources  were  pre-Exilic, 
and  may  be  in  part  older  than  D"  (Benn,  &  Ad.  Int.). 

e.  The  Priest  Code,  P.  We  come  now  to  a  document  which  has 
played  an  important  role  in  Hexateuch  criticism,  namely  the  Priest 
Code,  P.  It  includes  some  of  the  principal  parts  of  Genesis,  as  i :  i — 2 : 
4;  5:  1-32;  6:  9-22,  and  long  sections  in  other  chapters;  the  greater 
part  of  Exodus  and  Numbers,  all  of  Leviticus  (except  chs.  17-26)  and 
a  considerable  part  of  Joshua,  chs.  13-22.  Starting  with  the  creation 
and  the  Sabbath,  it  not  only  narrates  the  course  of  events  to  the  division 
of  Canaan  among  the  tribes,  but  also  presents  a  succinct  and  graphic 
account  of  the  fundamental  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Germans  call  it,  not  inaptly,  the  Fundamental  Code  (Grundschrift). 
The  question  of  its  date  and  composition  is  therefore  of  far-reaching 
significance. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  other  documents,  it  was  not  the  product  of 
one  man,  or  one  age,  but  of  many.  Accordingly,  the  exigencies  of  up- 
to-date  criticism  require  a  series  of  symbols  to  denote  the  different 
strata.     Thus    P    denotes    either   the    Priest    Code    or   any   material   by 

1  2 

priestly  writers;     P  the  Law  of  Holiness;     P  the  Priest  Code  proper; 
3      4      5      X  D 

P,  P,  P,  P,  later  additions  to  the  Priest  Code.     Other  sympols  are  R, 

editor  who  added  D  to  JE;  R,  editor  who  combined  JED  and  P,  or 
later  priestly  editors  who  revised  and  retouched  the  Hexateuch  and 
other  historical  books." 


"  "The  Deuteronomic  writers  compose  codes,  exhortations  to  obedience;  they 
provide  earlier  history  with  chronological  framework  and  religious  comment;  only 
in  Kings   do  they  themselves  write  history"    (Bennett  and  Adeney,  Introd.,   50). 

1^  The  stylistic  characteristics  of  P  are  marked,  there  being  words,  phrases 
and  expressions  found  nowhere  else  or  rarely  in  the  O.  T.  The  diction  is  syste- 
matic,   rigid,    chronological,    stereotyped,    as    seen   in   the   first   chapter   of   Genesis: 


14  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

The  question  of  the  age  and  authorship  brings  us  to  heart  of  Old 
Testament  criticism.     In  common  usage,  P  stands  for  the  whole  com- 

12  3  X 

posite  document  compiled  from  P,  P,  P,  down  to  P.  As  some  of  the 
latter  are  themselves  based  on  earlier  sources,  which  may  have  been 
used  by  different  writers,  the  analysis  seems  finally  to  lose  itself  in  an 
intricate  and  inextricable  labyrinth.     The  critics  are  not  agreed  whether 

I  a 

P  and  P  were  composed  independently  and  then  combined,  or  whether 

P  was  merely  the  nucleus  of  the  larger  work  P.  In  either  case  addi- 
tions were  made  by  later  writers,  and  by  the  editor  who  combined  them. 
Under  such  conditions  the  question  of  date  and  authorship  has  no 
definite  meaning,  for  the  developmental  and  evolutionary  process  is 
conceived  of  as  extending  over  an  indeterminate  period  of  from  three 
to  eight  centuries." 

1 
Since  H,  otherwise  P,  is  assumed  to  have  affinities  with  Ezek. 
40-48  (circa  585)  and  to  have  been  composed  during  the  Exile,  critics 
generally  hold  that  P,  although  containing  more  or  less  early  material, 
is  essentially  an  Exilic  or  post-Exilic  work.  Driver  says :  "P  belongs 
approximately  to  the  period  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity";  Holzin- 
ger.  The  very  beginning  of  the  fifth  century",  Wellhausen,  445  B.  C. 
According  to  the  Grafian  school  generally,  P  was  composed  in  Baby- 
lonia after  the  Exile  and  combined  with  H  before  Ezra's  mission  to 
Palestine  in  458.  P,  therefore,  though  receiving  additions  as  late  as 
350  B,  C.  was  practically  complete  in  445.^^ 

/.  Manner  of  combining  the  Documents.  Assuming  that  these  doc- 
uments existed  separately  for  a  longer  or  shorter  time,  the  Graf-Well- 
hausen  school  hold  that  somewhere  in  the  seventh  century,  say,  650,  a 
redactor,  R,  or  editor,  combined  J  and  E  into  one  work,  or,  more 
accurately,  selected  from  each  the  material  suited  to  his  purpose,  reject- 
ing for  the  most  part  duplicate  matter  or  whatever  did  not  fall  in  with 
his  plan.  The  result  was  a  composite  work  JE.^*^  From  the  peculiarities 
of  language,  historical  and  other  statements,  the  critics  profess  to  be 
able  to  restore  the  original  sources  or  documents  so  far  as  preserved. 
Somewhat  later,  after  621,  perhaps  during  the  Exile,  another  editor 
combined  D  with  JE,  producing  JED.  Some  critics,  however,  hold 
that  one  editor  combined  J,  E,  and  D.  Some  time  after  the  Exile,  an- 
other Redactor  combined  H  and  the  various  priestly  strata  into  the 
Priest  Code  proper.     This  code  was  published  by  Ezra  in  445,   B.  C. 

"Evening  and  morning  were  —  day",  "God  saw  that  it  was  good",  etc.     "Both  in 

method  and  literary  style,  P  oflfers  a  striking  contrast  to  either  J   or  E 

His  aim  IS  to  give  a  systematic  view,  from  a  priestly  stand-point,  of  the  origin  and 
chief  institutions  of  the   Israelitish   theocracy"    (Driv.   Lit.). 

",  ^"""i-  ?.  F.  Moore,  an  adherent  of  the  Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen  scheme 
remarks:  The  result  was  the  heterogeneous  conglomerate  which  it  is  customary 
to  call   the  Priests'  Code"   (Ency.  Bib.,  col.   2082). 

'..■  "  ^^  ?  '5  thus  late,  the  historical  character  of  much  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  Le- 
viticus and  ^  umbers  is  of  course  blotted  out.  The  average  Bible  student  may 
well  ask,  What  becomes  of  the  credibility  and  inspiration  of  the  Pentateuch  under 

,  "  Since  T  and  E  would  not  be  destroyed  at  once,  it  is  believed  that  they  still 
circulated  separately  until   finally  superseded  by  the   larger  work. 


ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING   AND    LITERATURE.  1 5 

(Kuenen).    Somewhat  later  JED  and  P  were  combined  into  our  Hex- 
ateuch." 

Collecting  the  various  strata  and  fragments  and  employing  the  sym- 
bols of  the  critics,  one  obtains  the  following  interesting  literary  and 

algebraic  formula :     J+J+J+J+E+E+E+E+D+D+D+H+P+P+P+ 

X  J  E     JE        D        P    JEP 

P+R+R+R+R+R+R+R  =Hexateuch, 

To  the  average  reader,  unacquainted  with  the  methods  or  supposed 
methods  of  ancient  literary  composition,  such  a  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  Hexateuch  is  the  climax  of  absurdity  and  its  own  sufficient  refuta- 
tion; to  the  twentieth  century  Old  Testament  critic,  revelling  in  the 
study  of  Hebrew  words  and  idioms,  and  assuming  that  Hebrew  authors 
excerpted  from  their  sources  any  suitable  material,  and  modified  and 
transposed  at  pleasure,  such  a  procedure  in  the  compilation  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch is  not  only  conceivable,  but  under  the  circumstances  perfectly 
natural  and  legitimate.^ 

g.  The  Dillmann  Hypothesis.  It  must  be  observed  that 
though  the  above  analysis  is  accepted  by  the  great  body  of 
divisive  critics,  or  the  Grafians,  as  they  are  called,  a  scholarly 
and  influential  German  school,  headed  by  Dillmann,  Kittel  and 
Koenig,  advocate  a  considerably  earlier  date  for  the  documents, 
especially  the  Priest  Code.  Thus  Kittel :  ''The  oldest  stratum, 
partly  containing  the  groundwork  of  the  Law  of  Holiness  and 
partly  that  of  P,  may  justifiably  be  placed  in  a  comparatively 
early  period,  at  any  rate  from  that  of  Solom'on  downwards 
(tenth  and  ninth  century")   (Hist.  Hebrews,  I,  132). 

On  this  hypothesis,  P  in  its  main  texture  is  either  the 
second  oldest  document,  following  E,  or  at  least  the  third,  fol- 
lowing J,  all  of  them  preceding  D.  According  to  this  view, 
E  and  P  were  united  first,  and  J  added  at  a  later  date ;  or, 
perhaps  P  was  added  after  the  union  of  E  and  J.  Subsequent- 
ly D  was  incorporated  with  JEP,  yielding  JEPD.  The  Pen- 
tateuch (Hexateuch)  was  therefore  a  complete  work  before 
the  close  of  the  Exile,  and  possibly  before  its  beginning.  In 
the  Dillmann  scheme,  the  component  parts  of  the  Pentateuch 


21  The  critics  of  the  extreme  left  in  reality  hold  that  each  of  the  above  doc- 
uments was  originally  a  mere  nucleus,  which  received  additions  from  generation 
to  generation  by  a  kind  of  accretion,  much  as  a  heap  of  stones  might  be  enlarged. 
Each  code  proceeded  from  a  "school",  each  member  thereof  adding  or  eliminating 
matter  at  pleasure.  The  Codes,  like  Topsy,  simply  "grew",  gradually  and  im- 
perceptibly. Under  such  an  hypothesis,  authorship  in  the  usual  sense  is  out  of 
the   question. 

^  If  the  critics  are  right,  the  method  of  composition  furnishes  the  most 
remarkable  example  in  all  literature,  ancient  or  modern,  of  a  work  compiled  from 
so  many  sources  and  by  so  many  hands,  and  yet  characterized  by  undoubted  unity 
and  homogeneity.  Homer's  Iliad,  the  Bible  of  the  Greeks,  has  to  be  sure  been 
similarly  dismembered;  but  the  most  radical  German  critics  have  hesitated  to  dis- 
sect the  Greek  classic  in  any  such  style. 


l6  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

and  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole  are  conceived  to  be  from  one  to 
three  centuries  older  than  in  the  Grafian. 

The  sequence  of  the  Codes  and  the  manner  of  their  com- 
bination differ  considerably  in  the  Grafian  and  Dillmann  sys- 
tems. If  it  should  be  found  that  P  in  its  essential  features 
antedates  D,  the  whole  Vatke-Kuenen-Wellhausen  contention 
of  a  naturalistic  evolution  of  the  Codes  from  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  (Ex.  20-33)  ^o  J,  E,  D  and  thence  to  P  would  be 
undermined  at  its  supposed  strongest  point.  Unless  it  can  be 
shown  that  P  is  the  latest  Code,  the  evolution  hypothesis  can- 
not be  carried  through.  The  proposition  that  P  contains  very 
ancient  written  (and  not  merely  oral)  material  and  was  com- 
piled prior  to  D  (i.  e.  from  the  critical  stand-point)  was  elab- 
orately defended  by  Dillmann;  and  in  the  judgment  of  an 
increasing  number  of  competent  scholars,  his  arguments  have 
never  been  refuted. 

It  is  evident  that  the  anti-traditional,  or  critical  view,  un- 
der either  form,  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  traditional 
view;  and  if  accepted  necessitates  an  entire  readjustment,  if 
not  abandonment  of  the  old  theory  regarding  the  age,  author- 
ship and  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch. 

D.     THE    ORIGINAL    TRANSMISSION    OF    THE    EARLY    BOOKS, 

If  we  ask  how  the  earliest  Biblical  books  were  transmitted 
originally,  we  have  again  two  opposite  answers.  By  written 
records,  according  to  one  school;  by  oral  tradition,  according 
to  another. 

/.  Written  Records. 

If  writing  was  sufficiently  far  advanced  in  Israel  to  be 
employed  for  literary  purposes,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
there  were  scribes  and  writers  who  recorded  the  early  and 
contemporaneous  history.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  He- 
brews, certainly  from  the  date  of  the  Exodus,  and  perhaps 
earlier,  were  in  the  habit  of  writing  down  matters  of  impor- 
tance, especially  religious  laws  and  ordinances.  It  is  held  that 
such  records  were  transmitted  to  later  times  in  a  substantially 
correct  form  and  contained  authentic  and  reliable  history.  Ac- 
cording to  the  traditional  view,  not  only  were  Moses,  Joshua 
and  their  successors  able  to  write  and  compose  books,  but  they 
actually  either  composed  or  caused  to  be  composed  the  early 
books  of  the  Bible. 


ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW    WRITING   AND   LITERATURE.  1 7 

It  is  held  further  that  the  question  of  a  written  record  is 
of  fundamental  import.  ''What  would  be  the  conceivable 
nature  of  revealed  religion,  without  a  record  of  facts?  The 
briefest  consideration  convinces  us,  that  either  the  whole  nature 
of  revelation  must  be  essentially  changed,  or  else  a  record  of 
its  historic  process  must  somehow  be  preserved.  To  be  sure 
the  fact  of  supreme  importance  is  the  fact  of  revelation  itself. 
But  the  very  nature  of  revelation,  if  it  is  to  take  the  form  of 
an  historical  process,  is  such  as  to  demand  a  record  of  that 
process"  (Ladd,  Doc.  Sac.  Script.,  I,  737). 

That  such  a  record  was  actually  made  is  the  firm  belief 
of  the  conservative  school.  Hengstenberg :  "Moses  was  able 
faithfully  to  impart  what  had  taken  place  before  his  eyes ;  and 
that  he  designed  to  relate  the  truth  his  whole  character  as  it 
appears  in  his  works  is  a  guarantee;  and  even  if  he  had  not 
wished  to  do  so,  he  must  have  done  it,  since  he  wrote  first  o£ 
all  for  those  who  had  witnessed  all  the  great  events  which  he 
communicated"  (Kingd.  God,  etc.,  I,  30).  "The  Bible  is 
through  and  through  of  historical  nature  and  spirit"  (Ewald). 
Fuerst,  in  his  History  of  Hebrew  Literature,  maintains  two 
propositions;  iirst,  that  the  accounts  of  the  cosmogony,  fall, 
flood,  migration  of  the  patriarchs,  were  written  down  in  the 
patriarchal  period;  second,  that  the  earliest  Hebrew  writing 
dates  from  a  time  prior  to  the  Mosaic  individualizing  of  the 
patriarchal  religion"  (p.,  25). ^^ 

The  conservatives  to  a  man  consider  it  vital  to  the  cred- 
ibility and  integrity  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  other  early 
books,  that  the  revelation  to  Moses  should  have  been  preserved 
in  permanent  form,  that  is  in  written  records,  and  not  entrusted 
for  safe-keeping  merely  to  the  somewhat  fickle  memory  of  men. 

2.  Oral  Tradition. 

In  opposition  to  the  foregoing  view,  the  whole  Grafian 
school,  without  any  important  exception,  hold  that,  not  written 
records,  but  oral  tradition,  formed  the  vehicle  of  transmission 
of  the  Hebrew  books  to  the  time  of  the  Monarchy  (1,000  B. 
C).     Wellhausen  constantly  emphasizes  this  point.     "It  can 

"  On  Deut.  31:  24,  Dr.  W.  H.  Green  says:  "If  it  be  possible  for  words  to 
convey  the  idea  that  the  entire  code  of  laws  here  spoken  of,  which  cannot  be  less 
than  Deut.  12-26,  was  written  by  Moses,  the  idea  is  here  expressed"  (Moses  and 
Proph.,  S3).  Canon  R.  B.  Girdlestone,  reviewing  the  historical  elements  in  Ex. 
Levit.  and  Num.,  says:  '*It  is  natural  to  take  them  as  made  up  of  official  docu- 
ments, recorded  at  or  about  the  time  of  the  events  narrated,  and  preserved  in  the 
sacred  archives  together  with  the  patriarchal  Book  of  Genesis.  There  is  abso- 
lutely no  literary  difficulty  in  this  view"   (Criticism  Criticised). 

2 


l8  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

be  shown  that  throughout  the  whole  of  the  older  period  the 
Torah  (Law)  was  no  fixed  legislative  code,  but  consisted 
entirely  of  the  oral  decisions  and  instructions  of  the  priests. 
....  IMoses  was  not  regarded  as  promulgator  once  ^  for 
all  of  a  national  constitution,  but  rather  as  the  first  to  call  into 
activity  the  actual  sense  for  law  and  justice,  and  to  begin  the 
series  of  oral  decisions,  which  were  continued  after  him  by  the 
priests"  (Proleg.  458). 

Wildeboer  says :  "Historical-literary  criticism  has  shown  that  all 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  without  exception  are  in  their  pres- 
ent form  post-Exilic This  is  true  also  of  their  origin"  (Litt. 

d.  Alt.  Test.).  Comill :  "In  the  Biblical  accounts  the  material  has  all 
gone  through  the  medium  of  popular  tradition.  Until  the  beginnings 
of  the  Monarchy,  all  the  historical  recollections  of  Israel  were  handed 
down  by  word  of  mouth"  {Hist.,  pp.,  4,  7).  Prof.  C.  F.  Kent  cham- 
pions this  view  at  some  length:  "In  the  process  of  transmission  these 
stories  [i.  e.  Israel's  traditions]  were  constantly  being  recast  and  sup- 
plemented  Contrary  to  the  position  sometimes  maintained,  it 

seems  probable  that  most  of  the  stories  found  in  the  first  eight  books  of 

the  O.  T.  originated  before  or  during  the  age  of  song  or  story 

Thus  all  the  indications  contained  in  Israel's  history  point  to  the  cen- 
tury or  two  beginning  with  about  950  B.  C.  as  the  era  when  the  oral 
traditions  of  an  earlier  age  were  collected  and  woven  into  connected 
groups  of  narratives"  {Begin.  Heb.  Hist.,  pp.,  13,  17,  18).^* 

What  is  commonly  called  the  Law  of  Moses  is  in  the  new 
view  a  series  of  oral  decisions  handed  down  by  the  lawgivers 
and  judges  from  Moses  to  Samuel  and  finally  written  out  in 
the  centuries  interv^ening  between  900  and  4CX),  that  is  from 
five  to  ten  centuries  after  the  Mosaic  age. 

E.     HISTORY,    OR   LEGEND. 

Here  again  the  two  schools  entertain  diametrically  oppo- 
site views,  the  one  maintaining  that  the  matter  in  the  Penta- 
teuch and  the  early  Old  Testament  books  is  in  a  true  sense 
historical,  the  other  that  it  is  essentially  unhistorical,  or  legen- 
dary. 

I.  History,  not  Legend. 

On  the  basis  of  the  evidence  from  the  books  themselves 
and  from  other  sources,  the  traditional  school  maintains  that 


**  Elsewhere  Kent  says:  "Up  to  this  time  [Saul's]  the  only  records  of  the 
past  appear  to  have  been  disconnected  popular  traditions,  recounted  beside  the 
camp  fire,  in  the  secret  of  the  harem,  at  marriage  feasts,  at  the  local  sanctuaries, 
during  the  annual  feasts,  at  the  wells,  or  beside  the  city  gates,  wherever  men  and 
women  were  gathered  together  and  the  story-teller  could  find  an  audience"  (Is- 
rael's Hist,  and  Biograph.  Nar.  p.,  3).  In  other  words  Prof.  Kent  would  have 
us  believe  that  the  first  eight  books  of  the  O.  T.  are  little  more  than  Old  Wives' 
Tales. 


ANTIQUITY   OF    HEBREW    WRITING    AND    LITERATURE.  IQ 

the  matter  in  the  early  Old  Testament  books  is  of  an  historical 
and  trustworthy  character  and  reflects  events  substantially  as 
they  occurred.  If  writing  was  employed  by  the  Israelites  for 
literary  purposes  in  the  period  of  the  Exodus  and  later,  if 
Moses  and  his  successors  wrote  down  laws  and  the  essence  of 
contemporary  happenings,  we  have  records,  chronicles,  jour- 
nals as  truly  authentic  and  reliable  as  those  at  command  for  a 
history  of  the  Crusades  or  of  the  Norman  Conquest.  If  the 
material  for  the  former  is  to  be  pronounced  legendary,  so  also 
must  the  latter. 

Hengstenberg  writes:  "All  modern  distinguished  histori- 
ans, as  Niebuhr,  etc.,  agree  that  the  O.  T.  history  is  more 
authentic  even  in  that  which  it  relates  concerning  other  nations 
than  the  most  reliable  native  sources.  If  it  be  proved  therefore 
that  the  historical  books  have  in  general  a  true  historical  value, 
and  not  a  mythical  character,  we  have  no  right  to  reject  as 
mythical  that  which  has  reference  to  an  extraordinary  inter- 
ference of  God  in  nature,  unless,  like  the  heathen  prodigies,  it 
stands  out  as  aimless  and  isolated"  (op.  cit.).  Fr.  Delitzsch : 
"If  history  is  critically  annihilated,  [as  by  the  Grafians],  what  is 
left  but  to  fill  the  tabula  rasa  with  modern  myths?"  (Com. 
Gen.,  I,  9). 

Prof.  S.  Leathes  says:  "On  the  radical  view  not  only  are 
we  uncertain  as  to  what  God  said  unto  Moses,  but  we  do  not 

even  know  that  he  spoke  to  him  at  all It  is  therefore 

all  moonshine  to  say  that  if  we  destroy  the  form  of  the  revela- 
tion, the  fact  remains  untouched  (Driver)  ;  because  no  fact 
at  all  remains,  except  so  much  as  we  choose  to  concede  to  pop- 
ular prejudice,  resting  as  it  does  in  the  mere  oral  revelation 
without  any  specific  authority  whatever"  (Claims  of  O.  T., 
p.,  30).^^   ^ 

Such  is  substantially  the  conservative  position. ^^ 

2.  Legend,  not  History. 

The  anti-traditional  school  declare  that  the  narratives  in 
the  Pentateuch,  Joshua  and  Judges  are  not  strictly  history,  but 

25  Of  the  professional  writers  on  O,  T.  History,  Ewald,  Hengstenberg,  Koeh- 
ler,  Wm,  Smith,  Kurtz,  Milman,  Stanley,  Sayce,  Edersiieim,  Kittel,  Klostermann, 
Lotz,  Volck  and  Erbt  occupy  the  traditional  view-point;  Reuss,  Kuenen,  Wellhau 
sen,  Stade,  Cornill,  Piepenbring,  H.  P.  Smith,  Winckler,  Kent  the  opposite  ex- 
treme. 

2^  According  to  Bishop  Hervey  "The  narrative  contained  in  the  Pentateuch 
is  either  absolutely  true  history,  or  a  most  skillful  and  elaborate  fiction.  The 
close  connection  between  the  parts,  the  coherence  of  the  successive  stages  of  the 
drama,  etc.,  precludes  the  possibility  of  mere  books  containing  a  bundle  of  tra- 
ditions or  legends  mingled  with  fragments  of  truth  here  and  there"  (Lex  Mosaica). 


20  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

legends,  entertaining  stories  coming  down  from  the  past,  but 
not  verified  by  historical  record. 

Here  again  the  chief  authorities  are  Kuenen,  Wellhausen 
and  Stade,  to  whom  their  American  followers  are  largely  in- 
debted. Kuenen  boldly  avows  his  stand-point:  "Our  faith  in 
Israel's  own  account  of  her  career  is  at  once  severely  shaken 
by  the  discovery  that  by  far  the  greater  number  of  those 
accounts  did  not  proceed  from  contemporaries,  but  were  writ- 
ten very  long  after  the  events  of  which  they  treat.  .  .  .  This 
applies  especially  to  the  accounts  of  the  period  of  the  Judges, 
the  conquest  of  Canaan,  the  times  of  Moses  and  the  patriarchs. 
....  Their  principal  element  is  legend"  (Relig.  Is.,  p.,  i6- 
7).  The  word  legend  is  the  shibboleth  of  this  school.  Well- 
hausen in  the  Prolegomena  rejects  the  traditional  chronology  of 
the  books  and  claims  that  *'to  get  even  approximately  at  the 
truth  we  are  shut  up  to  an  analysis  of  the  contents".  Under  Well- 
hausen's  manipulation  little  of  an  historical,  much  of  a  legen- 
dary character  is  found.-'  We  do  not  attain,  says  Wellhau- 
sen, "to  historical  knowledge  of  the  patriarchs,  but  only  of  the 
time  when  the  stories  about  them  arose  among  the  Israelite 
people"  (322).  Abraham  is  not  an  historical  person;  "he 
might  with  more  likelihood  be  regarded  as  a  free  creation  of 
unconscious  art"  (323).  The  early  chapters  of  Genesis  do  not 
rise  even  to  the  dignity  of  legend;  they  contain  merely  myths.^^ 
Wellhausen  speaks  of  "the  mythical  stuff  of  the  oldest  world- 
history",  "of  the  discoloration  of  the  myths",  and  of  "the 
m}'thical  universal  history",  in  Gen.  I-XI.  The  accounts  of 
the  places  of  worship,  Shechem,  Bethel,  Hebron,  etc.,  are  mere 
"culture  myths".  "Purely  mythical  elements  are  particularized 
in  the  wrestling  of  Jacob  at  the  Jabbok"  (op.  cit.,  pp.,  320,  26- 
30-43).  At  the  end  of  Wellhausen's  dissecting  process  noth- 
ing of  historical  value  remains  in  the  Pentateuch.  Joshua  and 
Judges  fare  no  better,  for  they  have  "neither  definite  aim.  nor 
true  hi  story. 2^ 

"  Wellhausen  begins  with  Chronicles,  which  contains  "a  deliberate  and  in  its 

motives   a  very  transparent  mutilation   of   the   original   narrative One 

might  as  well  try  to  hear  the  grass  grow  as  expect  to  find  here  definite  knowledge 
of  ancient  Israel  (op.  ctt.,  pp.,  71,  215).  W.  scarcely  allows  to  the  Chronicler 
ordinary  wit  and  honesty.  He  slashes  into  the  other  historical  books  in  very 
much   the  same  style.  ^ 

"  A  myth  is  the  creation  of  a  fact  out  of  an  idea,  a  legend  the  seeing  of  an 
idea  in  a  tact.  1  he  myth  is  purely  the  work  of  the  imagination;  the  legend  has 
a   nucleus   of   fact.—Stand.   Dictionary.  &  .  5  ck, 

xxT  ■"  ^"  ^^I  ^'u^'"*!''*'^^  ?"^  Judaic  History",  W.  elaborates  the  above  views. 
W.  is  regarded  by  the  Grafians  as  having  once  for  all  established  the  impregnabil- 
ity of  their  position  and  silenced  all  cavil.     His  works  are  written  in  a  chlrming 


ANTIQUITY   OF    HEBREW    WRITING   AND    LITERATURE.  21 

The  anti-traditional  view  is  clearly  set  forth  by  Prof.  H. 
P.  Smith,  The  Genesis  narratives  are  for  the  most  part 
Sagas/'^  which  "circulate  orally  long  before  there  is  any  writ- 
ten literature.  They  are  products  of  the  poetic  imagination", 
and  so  have  little  historic  value.  "We  have  no  really  histori- 
cal knowledge  of  a  patriarchal  period  preceding  Israel's  con- 
quest of  Canaan.  The  individuals,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
are  eponyms  —  personifications  of  clans,  tribes  or  ethnological 

groups  —  and  they  are  nothing  more The  nature 

of  the  information  given  by  the  stories  is  such  that  we  cannot 
suppose  it  handed  down  by  any  valid  historical  process  —  fam- 
ily gossip  known  only  to  the  immediate  members  of  the  fam- 
ily does  not  pass  accurately  from  one  generation  to  another 

for  six  hundred  years  or  more Our  conclusion  is 

that  there  is  not  sufficient  warrant  for  supposing  individuals 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  to  have  been  the  ancestors  of  the 
people"  (0.  T.  History,  pp.,  42,  48-50).^^ 

German  critics  like  Holzinger,  Stade,  Meinhold  follow  in 
the  wake  of  Wellhausen.  Meinhold  writes:  "The  patriarchs 
are  nothing  more  than  the  ideal  Israel.  ...  As  to  an  his- 
torical outline,  the  patriarchal  times  fall  away  entirely"  (Wi- 
der d.  Kleinglaiihen,  23).  The  American  wing  of  the  anti- 
traditional  school  uniformly  claim  that  the  Pentateuchal  nar- 
ratives are  largely  legendary. ^^ 

F.     RELATION    OF    LAW    AND    PROPHECY. 

A  similar  antithesis  exists  between  the  two  schools  on  the 
relation  of  the  Pentateuchal  laws  and  later  prophecy.     Was 


style  and  are  classics  in  this  field.  His  opponents  charge  that  underneath  the 
smoothly  flowing  sentences,  there  lurks  a  specious  logic,  a  false  historical  method 
and  an  anti-Old  Testament  bias,  which  are  but  poorly  concealed  under  the  guise 
of  candor.  —  It  is  astounding  to  what  an  extent  a  whole  regiment  of  American 
writers  swallow  complacently  any  and  every  statement,  however  unsupported,  put 
forth  by  Wellhausen. 

^^  Saga  (a  Scandinavian  word)  is  a  legend  or  tradition  of  considerable  length, 
relating  either  mythical  or  historical  events.  —  Cent.  Dictionary. 

81  Prof.  Smith  finds  the  accounts  of  the  Exodus  so  contradictory  that  litte  can 
be  made  of  them.  "The  most  glaring  improbabilities  are  the  property  of  the 
Priestly  writer".  The  "unhistorical  scheme"  of  the  priestly  writer  being  left 
aside,  "we  examine  the  story  of  J  and  E",  but  even  here  "we  find  little  that  com- 
mands our  confidence"    (pp.,   53,   56). 

"  So  Dr.  J.  P.  Peters:  "At  or  about  the  time  of  Solomon,  when  the  effort 
was  made  to  write  the  history  of  Israel's  past,  these  stories  and  legends  [of  the 
Exodus]  were  brought  into  consecutive  shape  to  form  the  history  of  this  period. 
....  For  the  still  earlier  period,  which  preceded  the  deliverance  from  Egypt 
and  the  creation  of  the  nation,  the  compilers  of  the  history  found  another  sort 
of  material — legends  with  myth  intermixed"   (Early  Hebrew  Story,   p.,    12). 


22  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  law  first  and  then  prophecy,  or  prophecy  first  and  then 
the  law? 

1.  Law  -first,  then  Prophecy. 

It  was  the  uniform  belief  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  and  of 
the  earlv  Christian  Church  that  the  Mosaic  law  was  the  basis 
of  the  Old  Testament  religion.  Catholics  and  Protestants  in 
the  Reformation  and  post-Reformation  periods  believed  that 
Moses  under  divine  guidance  promulgated  a  legislation  substan- 
tially as  recorded  in  Exodus — Deuteronomy,  and  that  the  his- 
torical and  prophetical  books  were  permeated  by  its  spirit.  In 
short,  the  Pentateuch  preceded  both  genetically  and  chrono- 
logically the  prophetical  books,  as  Amos,  Isaiah  and  the  rest.^^ 
The  Ten  Words  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  were  held  to 
be  the  foundation  of  the  prophetic,  priestly  and  kingly  func- 
tions of  the  theocracy.  The  teaching  of  the  prophets  was 
under  this  view  but  an  enforcement  of  the  Mosaic  law  and  an 
efifort  to  bring  back  the  people  to  the  fundamental  principles 
of  their  religion.  The  law  came  first,  then  prophecy  in  the 
special  sense. 

So  W.  H.  Green:  "The  history  and  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch 
lies  at  the  basis  of  all  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Old  Testament.  It 
is  presupposed  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Prophets"  (Moses  and  Proph. 
p.  345)-  Likewise  G.  Vos :  "Prophecy  presupposes  the  law — roots  it- 
self in  it,  and  grows  out  of  it"  (op.  cit.  p.,  172).  Also  E.  C.  Bissell : 
'The  settlement  of  this  one  question  (namely  of  the  order  of  law  and 
prophecy)  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  must  be  the  virtual  settlement  of 
the  entire  discussion  in  its  present  form"  (Pent.,  p.,  291).  That  such 
is  the  claim  and  position  of  the  whole  traditional  school  could  easily 
be  shown,  if  necessary.** 

2.  Prophecy  Urst,  then  Law. 

The  Graf-Wellhausen  school  places  the  law  after  prophecy 
on  the  grounds  among  others  that  the  conditions  were  not  pres- 
ent in  Israel  before  the  ninth  century  for  a  written  code  and 
that  the  early  writing  prophets,  as  Amos  and  Isaiah,  preceded 
the  written  law,  or  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  contended  that  the 
prophets  before  the  Exile  are  absolutely  silent  regarding  the 

I  u  "u'^'^'^.  ^''*^"'  "^turally  grew  out  of  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
(which  under  any  view  is  very  ancient),  the  Torah  standing  first,  then  the  Nebiim 
(the  historical   and   prophetical   books)    and   finally   the  Kethubim. 

"Thus  K.  Riehm:  "Prophetism  everywhere  assumes  as  a  basis  the  civil- 
ecclesiastical  legislation  enacted  by  Moses"  (Alttest.  Thcologie,  p.,  55).  Breden- 
kamp.  commenting  on  Hosea  8:  12,  says:  "The  actually  expressed  contempt  for 
tne  law  ^implies  its  existence,  and  indeed  in  written  form"  (Gesetz  u.  s.  w ) 
Again:  We  want  a  founder  of  the  prophetical  school  of  thought,  but  unless  he 
IS   Moses  we  cannot   find   him"    (Watson,   Law  and  Prophets,    79). 


ANTIQUITY    OF    HEBREW    WRITING   AND    LITERATURE.  23 

Levitical  Code,  and  that  such  silence  implies  the  non-existence 
of  the  Priest  Code.  Wellhausen  argues  that  the  asisumed 
legislation  of  Moses  disappears  entirely  when  the  people  enter 
Canaan ;  the  period  of  the  Judges  is  one  of  chaos  with  no  trace 
of  the  Mosaic  laws,  and  the  temporal  rulers,  not  the  priests, 
are  at  the  head  of  affairs  and  in  fact  have  charge  of  the  wor- 
ship and  sacrifices,  appointing  and  discharging  priests  at  pleas- 
ure. *'The  Torah  of  Jehovah  is  not  a  definite  document  guar- 
anteeing the  rights  of  the  priests,  but  simply  their  oral  decisions 

to  others So  far  as  the  literature  of  the  period  of 

the  monarchy  is  concerned,  it  would  be  exceedingly  difficult  to 
discover  even  a  few  ambiguous  echoes  of  the  law."  (Wellh. 
Prole  g.). 

W.  R.  Smith  says:  "The  prophets  of  the  eighth  century 
never  speak  of  a  written  law  of  Moses"  (O.  T.  Jew.  Ck,  2p/). 
R.  L.  Ottley :  'The  general  results  of  O.  T.  criticism  might  be 
summed  up  in  a  single  sentence :  instead  of  speaking  of  the  law 
and  the  prophets,  we  might  equally  speak  of  the  prophets  and 
the  law"  (Aspects  of  O.  T.,  p.,  265). 

As  was  pointed  out  above,  the  Grafians  regard  the  Priest 
Code  as  dating  from  445  B.  C.  The  book  of  the  law  read  by 
Ezra  (Nell.  8:  1-6)  was,  it  is  alleged,  chiefly  this  Priest  Code, 
which  until  then,  if  in  existence  at  all,  was  known  only  to  the 
priests,  and  which  in  the  Grafian  scheme  is  the  latest  of  the 
Codes,  nearly  a  thousand  years  after  Moses.  We  understand 
now  why  the  question  of  the  date  of  this  Code  is  so  vital  and 
far-reaching.  Smend  says  correctly :  "The  controversy  relates 
to  that  part  of  the  Pentateuch  which  embodies  the  essential 
matter  of  the  O.  T.  law"  (Alttest.-Religionsg.,  8). 

Obviously,  this  whole  position  as  over  against  the  other 
is  of  the  most  revolutionary  character  and,  if  correct,  necessi- 
tates a  reconstruction  of  the  whole  Old  Testament  religion 
(and  indeed  of  Christianity  itself)  from  the  ground  up. 

G.     GOD,    MAN    AND   THE   SUPERNATURAL. 

The  six  preceding  antitheses  grow  largely  out  of  diametric- 
ally opposed  interpretations  of  literary  and  historical  data  in 
the  early  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  underneath  these 
opposing  view-points  there  run  two  antagonistic  theories  of 
God  and  man,  of  the  supernatural  and  the  natural.  In  the 
final  analysis  the  issue  is  transferred  to  the  field  of  the  philoso- 


24  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

phy  of  mind,  of  history  and  of  the  universe.  However  care- 
fully disguised,  the  fact  remains  that  the  above  schools  start 
from  two  conflicting  theories  of  the  O.  T.  religion,  two  different 
if  not  irreconcilable,  philosophical  postulates,  the  one  affirming, 
the  other  denying  the  commonly  accepted  inferences  from  a 
thorough-going  theism. 

III. 

ARE    THE    TRADITIONAL    AND    ANTI-TRADITIONAL    POSITIONS 
RECONCILABLE? 

I.    EACH   SCHOOL  REGARDS   ITS   POSITION   AS   ESTABLISHED. 

Each  of  the  above  schools  is  certain  that  its  view  is  correct 
as  over  against  the  other. 

(i).  Conservatives  Firm   in   Their  Attitude. 

The  conservatives  consider  that  their  view  has  been  placed 
or  is  capable  of  being  placed  on  a  solid  historical  basis  and  is 
the  only  view  which  guarantees  the  integrity  and  inspiration 
of  the  Old  Testament.  A  denial  of  the  direct  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  is  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  its  inspired 
character;  and  a  denial  of  its  supernatural  character  in  the 
objective  sense  means  the  undermining  of  the  Old  Testament 
(and  of  the  New  Testament)  as  containing  a  special  and  super- 
natural revelation. 

(2).  Grafians  Deem  their  Position  Established  Absolutely. 

The  radical  critics  are  thoroughly  convinced  in  their  own 
minds  that  a  rejection  of  their  theory  implies  a  lack  of  his- 
toric insight,  true  scholarship  and  philosophic  acumen.  In 
1882.  Strack  said :  ''Keil  is  now  about  the  only  prominent  O. 
T.  scholar  who  holds  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire 
Pentateuch".  Stade  regards  "the  discovery  of  the  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  one  of  the  most  brilliant  triumphs  of  human 
genius".  *  Through  the  brilliant  demonstration  of  Wellhausen 
the  Grafian  hypothesis  has  attained  almost  universal  supremacv 
and  recognition"  (Kautzsch).  "It  is  admitted  almost  univer- 
sally that  there  existed  in  Israel  before  Josiah  no  divine  law- 
book of  public  authority"  (Smend).  Recent  encyclopaedias, 
commentaries,  Bible  histories  and  compends  of  theology-  from 
the  critical  side   (so-called)    accept  the  non-Mosaic  origin  of 


TRADITIONAL    AND    ANTI-TRADITIONAL    POSITIONS.  2$ 

the  Pentateuch  without  question;   the  old  view  is  not  thought 
worthy  of  serious  consideration.^^ 

2.  Irreconcilable  Antagonism. 

In  the  opinion  of  competent  judges,  the  differences  between 
the  two  schools  are  too  great  and  far-reaching  to  admit  of 
reconciliation.  Prof.  Jordan  in  a  review  of  G.  A.  Smith's 
Modem  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament", 
remarks :  "It  is  no  use  attempting  to  minim^ize  the  difference 
between  the  traditional  view  and  the  critical  treatment  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  difference  is  immense;  they  involve  dif- 
ferent conceptions  of  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world;  differ- 
ent views  as  to  the  course  of  Israel's  history,  the  process  of 
revelation,  and  the  nature  of  inspiration.  We  cannot  be  lifted 
from  the  old  to  the  new  position  by  the  influence  of  a  charm- 
ing literary  style  or  by  the  force  of  the  most  enthusiastic  elo- 
quence" (Am.  Jour.  Theol.  1902,  p.,  114).  Rev.  I.  Gibson  in 
a  work  championing  Grafianism,  says:  'The  traditional  and 
critical  views  of  revelation  are  face  to  face  in  open  antagonism". 
Dr.  Hazard  in  the  introduction  to  Gibson's  book  regards  these 
theories  as  mutually  destructive :  "As  compared  with  the  .  .  . 
obsolescent  treatment  of  the  Bible  that  was  accepted  outside  the 
limited  circle  of  specialists  down  to  within  the  last  two  or  three 
decades  the  present  system  is  an  advance  of  such  profound 
significance,  that  the  two  are  nothing  short  of  mutually  de- 
structive". 

Prof.  Volck  of  Dorpat,  a  conservative,  writes :  "Under 
the  influence  of  Wellhausen  the  opposition  to  the  churchly  con- 
ception of  the  Old  Testament  has  developed  to  the  utmost  ex- 
treme. Peace  between  the  two  camps  is  impossible;  the  gulf 
which  separates  them  cannot  be  bridged"  (Heil.  Schrift  u.  Kri- 
tik,  p.,  190).  Meinhold,  an  advanced  critic,  concedes  that  his 
views  are  utterly  incompatible  with  the  old :  "If  the  new 
hypotheses  are  correct,  the  old  conception  of  the  Pentateuch 
has  received  its  death-blow" ,  "Accordingly  the  opponents  of 
scientific  criticism  are  quite  right  when  they  speak  of  its  destruc- 
tive tendency"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  14). 

'"  The  most  recent  commentary  on  Exodus  undertakes  to  show  how  modern 
criticism  is  warranted  "in  denying  to  Moses  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
which  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  ascribed  to  him"  (A.  H.  McNeile,  Booh  of 
Exodus,  1908,  p.,  XI).  The  two  latest  commentaries  on  Genesis,  Gordons  Early 
Traditions  of  Genesis  (observe  the  significant  title)  and  Skinner  on  Genesis  in 
the  International  Critical  Series  (1910),  occupy  throughout  the  Grafian  view- 
point. 


26  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

A  careful  study  of  the  Grafian  scheme  will  convince  the  discrimin- 
ating reader  that  it  destroys  from  the  ground  up  the  old  order  of  things 
and  substitutes  an  astoundingly  revolutionary  hypothesis.  It  cuts  away 
the  foundation  of  the  whole  Old  Testament  religion,  in  its  historic 
setting,  and  builds,  not  on  Mosaism  as  heretofore  interpreted,  but  on  the 
Judaism  of  a  thousand  years  later.  This  is  no  half-way  measure;  it 
lays  the  axe  at  the  very  roots ;  everything  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
re-arranged  and  reconstructed  from  a  radically  different  view-point. 
A  lies  wird  aiif  den  Kopf  gestellt.  As  Boehl  says :  "The  later  criticism 
has  striven  to  turn  every  thing  up-side-down — has  made  the  lowest  the 
highest,  the  earliest  the  latest.  Nothing  remains  longer  in  its  old 
place"  (Gesetz  u.  Zeugn.  p.,  148.) 

3.   POSSIBILITY    OF    MEDIATING    POSITION. 

It  is  clear  that  these  mutually  exclusive  positions  arise 
from  different  philosophical  and  theological  standpoints,  dif- 
ferent canons  of  historical  criticism  and  different  conceptions 
of  the  limits  of  literary  criticism.  It  is  possible  that  each 
school,  seizing  some  important  principle,  develops  it  one-sidedly 
and  to  the  exclusion  of  other  equally  important  principles. 
Recognizing  whatever  of  truth  and  validity  attaches  to  either 
contention,  and  mediating,  if  need  be,  between  the  extremes, 
we  shall  endeavor  to  reach  a  safe  footing  for  the  solution  of 
the  problem. 

Three  attitudes  are  possible  toward  the  critical  analysis 
and  the  underlying  philosophy,  i.  A  rejection  of  both  the 
analysis  and  the  naturalistic  philosophy,  as  by  \N .  H.  Green. 
2.  An  acceptance  of  both  the  analysis  and  the  naturaHstic  phil- 
osophy, as  by  Kuenen.  3.  An  acceptance  of  the  analysis  and 
a  rejection  of  the  naturalistic  philosophy,  as  by  Dillmann. 
Which  of  these  positions  is  to  be  adopted,  will  be  seen  in  the 
sequel. ^^ 


»•  An  unfortunate  feature  of  the  whole  situation  on  the  one  hand  is,  that  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  Christian  Church  and  perhaps  a  considerable  body  of  min- 
isters, are  not  aware  of  the  real  nature  of  the  problem  and  so  rest  in  fancied 
security  that  every tlung  is  as  it  was  a  generation  ago;  and  on  the  other  that  the 
adherents  of  the  VVellhausen  camp,  convinced  of  their  victory,  deny  that  there 
IS  any  longer  an  enemy  in  sight. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  LOWER  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Reference  having  been  made  in  the  preceding  pages  to  Old 
Testament  criticism  and  its  real  or  assumed  results,  something 
must  be  said  here  regarding  its  aim  and  methods. 

I. 

THE  LOWER  CRITICISM. 
A.     CRITICISM   IN   GENERAL. 

Criticism  ordinarily  is  merely  fault-finding  or  adverse 
opinion.  Men  always  have  been  and  doubtless  always  will  be, 
critics,  for  they  cannot  avoid  expressing  judgments  concerning 
persons,  events  and  books.  The  universality  of  criticism  leads 
to  its  cultivation  as  a  special  science.  Whoever  would  express 
a  valid  judgment  on  a  painting,  a  scientific  treatise,  or  a  book 
of  the  Bible,  must  possess  special  fitness  and  conform  to  true 
standards.^  Few  men  are  safe  critics,  because  few  have  a 
thorough  grasp  of  all  the  facts  and  principles.  They  mistake 
their  own  opinions  and  preferences  for  objective  truths.  The 
most  perfect  men  are  one-sided  even  in  their  virtues,  leaning 
like  the  Scotchman's  straight  tree  a  little  to  one  side.^  If  men 
reasoned  infallibly  there  would  be  little  need  of  criticism.  But 
human  attainments  are  a  queer  mixture  of  the  true  and  the 
false,  the  correct  and  the  incorrect.  The  great  mass  of  people 
accept  as  true  whatever  they  have  learned  from  teachers  and 
friends  or  acquired  in  their  limited  experience.  The  trained 
specialist,  however,  accepts  a  conclusion  as  valid  only  after  a 
severe  test.  It  is  this  clash  of  opinion  arising  frorn  the  one- 
sideness  of  human  attainments  which  renders  criticism  in  the 
technical  sense  a  necessity  of  modern  life. 


1  The  word  criticism  comes  from  a  Greek  root  meaning  to  separate  one  thing 
from  another,  as  the  good  from  the  bad,  to  choose,  to  discriminate.  Here  lies 
the  germ  of  all  the  meanings,  namely  to  decide  any  matter  of  dispute  according 
to  reason  and  accepted  standards.  According  to  Kant,  criticism  aims_  to  discover 
the  principle  or  common  ground  lying  back  of  every  difference  of  opinion. 

27 


2S  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

This  spirit  of  testing  everything  anew,  of  inquiring  into  the  cor- 
rectness of  inherited  views  has  invaded  Biblical  and  especially  Old  Tes- 
tament science.^  Old  truths  are  rejected,  old  methods  abandoned.  New 
ideas,  new  methods  are  in  possession  of  the  field.  This  doubt- 
ing spirit  would  dig  beneath  the  very  foundations  of  knowledge 
and  call  into  question  even  the  eternal  verities.  This  iconoclasm  is  to 
be  deplored,  but  it  can  be  met  only  by  a  true  and  safe  criticism.  The 
problems  of  criticism  have  taken  a  wide  scope  through  the  intellectual 
temper  of  the  age,  and  especially  through  the  wide  acceptance  of  the 
evolutionistic  philosophy  (whatever  that  may  be).  Accordingly  Old 
Testament  criticism,  though  entirely  legitimate  as  a  science,  is  beset 
with  many  dangers  and  difficulties  as  we  shall  see. 

B.     KINDS    OF    CRITICISM. 

Much  of  the  confusion  in  the  public  mind  regarding"  criti- 
cism arises  from  the  wideness  of  the  field  and  the  overlapping 
of  method.  The  kinds  are  almost  as  numerous  as  the  range  of 
subjects;  and  some  subjects  admitting  half  a  dozen  points  of 
view  may  be  criticized  along  as  many  different  lines  of  ap- 
proach. It  is  sufficient  to  notice  two  principles  of  classification, 
which  ought  to  be  kept  distinct,  the  one  referring  to  the  sub- 
ject matter,  the  other  to  the  plan  of  procedure.  Thus  any 
critical  process  which  inquires  into  the  facts  and  laws  of  science 
is  called  scientific  criticism.  An  investigation  into  the  facts  and 
reliability  of  history  is  historical  criticism.  An  explanation  of 
the  facts  and  laws  of  consciousness  is  psychological  criticism ; 
and  an  inquiry  into  the  laws,  quahties  and  characteristics  of 
literature  is  called  literary  criticism.  In  all  these  the  subject- 
matter  suggests  the  name. 

The  second  method  derives  its  name  from  the  method  of  investiga- 
tion. If  the  method  of  science,  usually  the  inductive,  is  pursued,  the 
process  is  said  to  be  scientific,  even  though  the  subject  be  an  inquiry 
into  the  date  and  authorship  of  the  book  of  Job  or  Chronicles.'^  The 
Grafians  claim  that  their  criticism  is  strictly  and  exclusively  "scientific" 
and  infallible  as  over  against  all  other  methods.* 

'  The  recent  discoveries  in  Babylonia,  Egypt,  Palestine  and  in  Bible  lands 
generally  and  the  new  light  thrown  on  ancient  life,  civilization  and  religion  have 
impelled  men  to  ask  whether  some  old  views  about  the  Bible  must  not  be  greatly 
modified. 

3  There  occurs  one  important  exception  to  the  above  general  rule.  In  ordin- 
ary usage,  literary  criticism  is  so  called  solely  from  the  subject  matter,  the  method 
pursued  being  scientific,  historical,  ethical,  or  a  combination  of  these.  Other 
divisions  of  criticism  have  been  suggested,  as  lower  and  higher,  internal  and 
external,  subjective  and  objective,  positive  and  negative,  analytic  and  synthetic, 
static,  dynamic  and  organic.  No  strictly  logical  classification  has  yet  been  of- 
fered,  and  it  is  doubtful   if  such  be  possible. 

_  *  Today  induction  is  lauded  as  tlie  only  correct  method  of  Biblical  inquiry. 
It  is  a  powerful  agent  in  collecting  facts;  and  in  this  respect  men  today  are 
strong,  but  they  are  weak  in  the  interpretation  of  the  facts.  Critics  often  fail 
to  get  all  the  facts,  or  they  fail  to  interpret  correctly  the  facts  in  their  posses- 
sion. The  inductive  method  is  inadequate  when  it  undertakes  to  formulate  rules, 
for  it  cannot  classify  without  some  principle  of  classification,  and  this  is  furnished 
by  the  deductive  logic. 


LOWER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  29 

C.    THE  LOWER  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM    IN   GENERAL. 

The  most  widely  current  classification  is  that  of  Lower  and 
Higher,  or  Textual  and  Literary.  The  terms  are  not  entirely 
satisfactory,  but  we  retain  them  as  upon  the  whole  the  most 
expressive. 

1.  Lower  or  Textual  Criticism. 

This  is  the  science  which  seeks  to  recover  the  exact  words 
of  an  ancient  author.  In  the  case  of  books  written  several 
thousand  years  ago,  whether  sacred  or  secular,  we  naturally 
ask,  with  what  degree  of  fidelity  they  have  been  transmitted. 
Thus  if  one  were  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  the  works 
of  Josephus,  he  would  first  of  all  examine  the  correctness  of 
the  text,  the  very  words  reported  to  have  been  used  by  the 
historian,  and  ascertain  with  what  degree  of  fidelity  they  have 
been  handed  down  to  our  times.  Since  the  inquiry  relates  to 
an  examination  of  the  manuscripts,  the  mode  of  transcription 
and  the  faithfulness  of  copyists,  that  is  to  a  close  scrutiny  of  the 
external  side  of  the  preservation,  it  miay  with  propriety  be  called 
external,  lower  or  textual  criticism.'' 

2.  Higher  or  Literary  Criticism. 

If  in  the  case  just  supposed,  one  were  to  inquire  into 
the  date,  authorship  and  credibility  of  the  works  ascribed 
to  Josephus,  or  were  to  compare  his  statements  with  those 
of  other  ancient  writers,  either  earlier  or  later,  with  the  view 
of  determining  whether  Josephus  were  correct  in  his  rep- 
resentations, he  would  enter  the  field  'of  the  Higher  Crit- 
icism. An  inquiry  into  the  trustworthiness  of  the  matter  it- 
self (however  handed  down)  falls  under  this  head.  As  this 
is  a  delicate  and  difficult  process,  involving  sometimes  an 
inquiry  into  the  self-consistency  of  a  document  and  a  com- 
parison with  other  documents  of  disputed  date,  it  may  not  im- 
properly be  styled  internal  or  higher  criticism.  Obviously  the 
work  of  the  higher  criticism  begins  only  after  the  text  has  been 
established  by  the  lower  criticism.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
two  branches  overlap,  and  we  shall  see  that  many  a  modern 
critic,  finding  a  text  obscure,  undertakes  to  reconstruct  in  the 
interest  of  a  preconceived  notion  of  what  an  author  may  have 

5  The  term  text,  shortened  from  the  French  texte,  is  derived  from  the  Latin 
textus,  meaning  woven  together,  that  is  the  warp  and  woof  of  words  woven 
together  in  connected  discourse.  It  denotes  either  the  original  words  of  a  book, 
as  distinguished  from  a  commentary,  at  Kittel's  text  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  or 
specifically  the  letter  of  Scripture,   especially  in  the  original  languages. 


30  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

said.     Nevertheless,  some  such  distinction,  as  that  of  lower  and 
higher  criticism,  is  valid. 

D.     THE   NEED   OF   TEXTUAL   CRITICISM. 

We  do  not  proceed  far  in  the  study  of  an  author  of  a  former 
period  before  occasion  arises  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  the  text.  Take 
the  works  of  Shakespeare.  The  existing  text  is  derived  from  the  four 
folios  and  the  early  quartos,  each  containing  marked  peculiarities.  An 
example  will  show  the  transformation  which  a  text  may  undergo  in 
printing  and  editing.  "The  Comedy  of  Errors",  V  :i,  line  147,  has  in 
the  First  Folio,  "at  your  important  letters" ;  the  Second  Folio  changed 
"important"  to  "impoteant";  the  Third  and  Fourth  miscorrected  to 
"impotent",  and  Rowe,  a  later  editor,  changed  the  word  to  "all-potent"." 
The  text  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  no  such  deplorable  condition  as 
that  of  Shakespeare,  but  yet  in  coming  down  through  many  centuries, 
it  was  subject  to  similar  errors  of  transmission.  The  early  editions  of 
the  English  Bible  contained  some  typographical  errors,  but  only  a  small 
number  affected  the  sense.^  Various  mistakes  occurred  in  ancient  times 
in  the  transcription  of  the  Old  Testament.  No  ancient  book  handed 
down  through  many  centuries  could  be  kept  perfectly  free  from  change 
without  a  miracle.  Even  with  the  most  zealous  care,  mistakes  would 
arise.  The  object  of  textual  criticism  is  to  ascertain  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible the  original  text  of  the  writings,  that  is  to  correct  whatever  error 
of  language  may  have  crept  in  through  oversight.  The  aim  is  not  by 
an  evolutionary  process  to  construct  a  text  congenial  to  the  modern 
mind,  but  to  restore  by  means  of  new  evidence  and  a  more  thorough 
sifting  of  old  sources  the  exact  words  of  the  original  Scripture. 

In  such  an  undertaking  we  must  go  back  of  the  printed  editions 
of  our  Bibles,  none  of  which  are  earlier  than  the  fifteenth  century 
A.  D.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  manuscripts  furnishing  the  text 
of  the  early  printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Bibles  were  not 
of  the  first  rank,  and  even  these  were  not  used  to  the  best  advantage.® 
But  in  face  of  all  the  hindrances,  the  Old  Testament  has  been  handed 
down  in  a  greater  variety  of  ways  and  with  more  safeguards  than  any 
other  equally  ancient  book.  It  was  written  down  with  scrupulous 
accuracy  and  guarded  with  the  greatest  care.     Already  in  early  times 

*  A  Shakespearean  critic  writes:  "The  truth  is  that  the  text  of  S.  has  come 
down  to  us  from  his  own  time  with  such  imperfections  that  to  form  it  into  a 
self-consistent  v.hole  requires  a  degree  of  scholarship  and  of  critical  acumen 
beyond  that  required  by  the  text  of  any  other  great  poet  of  the  past  excepting 
Homer"    (R.   G.   White,  Studies  in   Shakcsp.). 

/  The  first  ]-'olio  Edition  of  the  Authorized  Version,  161 1,  has  among  other 
curious  errors  the  following.  Ex.  38:  11  "hoopes"  for  "hooks";  Levit.  17:  14 
"ye  shall  not  eat"  for  "ye  shall  eat"  etc.  The  second  and  third  Folios  correct 
some  of  the  errors  of  the  first,  but  introduce  others.  Thus  Ex.  9:  13  "may 
serve  thee"  for  "may  serve  me";  Levit.  7:  25  "fast"  for  "fat".  Fortunately,  the 
editions  of  the  Bible  put  forth  in  recent  times  are  nearly  wholly  free  from 
the   blemishes   of  books   published   a   few   centuries   ago. 

^Certain  manuscripts,  now  regarded  as  more  accurate  than  those  on  which 
the  Received  text  is  based,  were  not  available.  Hence,  though  the  Reformation 
scholars  produced  remarkably  accurate  editions,  they  did  not  enter  upon  a  criti- 
cal study  of  the  text,  and  so  did  not  in  all  places  reproduce  the  exact  words 
which  a  more  thorough  examination  of  the  manuscripts  would  have  yielded. 
Since  their  day  textual  criticism  has  developed  into  a  science  with  well-estab- 
lished  rules   and  principles. 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  3I 

official  copies  were  preserved  in  places  of  worship,  in  the  archives  of 
temples,  in  the  homes  of  priests  and  prophets,  and  in  the  palaces  of 
kings.  In  the  reproduction  of  copies,  every  precaution  was  taken  to 
guard  against  the  insertion  of  foreign  matter.  It  was  translated  into 
Greek  and  Aramaic  already  before  the  Christian  era,  and  into  Syriac 
and  Latin  shortly  after.     The  material  for  tracing  the  text  is  abundant.' 

II. 

THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 
A.     PROVINCE  OF    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Whenever  one  inquires  into  the  date,  authorship  and  integ- 
rity of  such  books  as  Joshua,  Judges  and  others  of  which  the 
Bible  gives  no  direct  information,  he  enters  the  province  of  the 
Higher  Criticism.  With  the  exception  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  prophetical  and  poetical  books,  the  Old  Testament  con- 
tains few  indications  of  date  and  authorship.  If  we  wish  to 
gratify  a  natural  desire  to  know  something  more  definite  on 
these  subjects,  the  only  course  open  to  us  is  to  institute  an 
inquiry  according  to  accepted  literary  and  historical  methods.^*^ 
Since  criticism  presupposes  some  standard  of  judgment,  much 
depends  on  the  view-point  of  the  critic.  If  he  is  conservative 
and  opposed  to  change,  he  will  be  guarded  in  his  conclusions; 
if  he  is  radical  and  inclined  to  accept  new  views,  he  may  hold 
as  true  that  which  is  purely  hypothetical.  The  tendency  to 
suggest  all  kinds  of  visionary  hypotheses  regarding  the  date 
and  origin  of  Old  Testament  books,  has  brought  the  Higher 
Criticism  into  ill-deserved  disrepute. 

We  describe  three  sub-heads  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

I,  Age  and  Authorship. 

It  is  important  to  know  when,  where  and  by  whom  a 
Biblical  book  was  written.  If  the  author's  name,  but  not 
his  age  is  mentioned,  can  we  by  an  examination  of  the  book 
itself  and  by  comparison  with  what  is  known  of  the  differ- 
ent periods  of  Hebrew  history  fix  his  age  with  any  degree 
of    assurance?      This    is   not    an   idle   question,    for   often    a 

'  Since  the  American  Revision  is  in  our  judgment  the  most  accurate  of 
the  English  translations,  it  is  adopted  here  as  the  standard  of  reference.  It 
must  be  noted,  however,  that  the  American  revisers  adopted  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  Received  rather  than  a  critically  established  Hebrew  text. 

1"  The  wide-spread  outcry  against  this,  the  real  aim  and  function  of  criti- 
cism, is  therefore  misdirected  and  often  betrays  great  ignorance  of  the  real 
questions  at  issue.  On  the  other  hand,  since  criticism  is  a  delicate  and  dan- 
gerous process,  and  is  often  pure  subjectivism,  it  is  not  surprising  that  with  the 
same  data,   equally  competent  scholars   reach  diametrically  opposite  conclusions. 


32  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

knowledge  of  the  people  whom  the  author  had  in  mind  lends 
greater  force  to  the  teaching  of  the  book.  Or,  if  neither  the 
author's  name  nor  the  date  is  given,  can  we  by  an  examination 
of  the  internal  evidence  reach  a  satisfactory  conclusion  as  to 
both  date  and  origin?  An  affirmative  answer,  though  not  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  an  acceptance  of  the  book  as  credible, 
inspires  a  greater  degree  of  confidence  in  its  historical  char- 
acter. 

2.  Integrity. 

Some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  alleged  to  be  com- 
posite works.  In  regard  to  the  integrity,  we  ask,  Does  a 
book  exhibit  signs  of  unity  of  plan,  purpose  and  authorship? 
Or,  Does  it  contain  linguistic  and  historical  evidence  of  hav- 
ing been  compiled  from  two  or  more  writings  by  some  editor 
who  skillfully  wove  together  the  parts  suitable  to  his  pur- 
pose? Again,  has  the  work  under  any  view  been  handed 
down  unimpaired  or  without  long  additions  through  many  cen- 
turies; or,  have  words  and  sentences,  and  even  whole  para- 
graphs been  incorporated  in  the  text?  When  we  recall  that 
there  was  no  copyright  in  ancient  times  and  that  everything 
once  published  was  public  property,  and  further  that  in  histori- 
cal writing,  it  was  regarded  as  desirable  to  reproduce  the  very 
language  of  a  document  as  proof  of  accuracy,  we  need  not  be 
surprised  that  the  ancient  literary  world  boldly  appropriated 
whatever  came  its  way.  The  Old  Testament  contains  many 
references  to  books  and  writings,  and  so  we  must  conclude  that 
the  authors  of  the  several  books  had  access  to  authentic  docu- 
ments and  used  them  freely.  Thus  the  question  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Old  Testament  books  were  compose'd  cannot 
be  evaded. 

3.  Credibility. 

Another  important  subject  is  that  of  credibility.  Does 
the  matter  of  an  Old  Testament  book  accord  with  the  social, 
historical  and  religious  condition  of  its  supposed  age  as  known 
from  contem.porary  sources,  or  does  it  contain  contradictions, 
inaccuracies  and  anachronisms?  In  short  is  the  book  reli- 
able and  credible?  Until  within  recent  years,  every  state- 
ment in  the  Bible  was  regarded  as  absolutely  correct;  and 
such  may  really  be  the  case.  But  in  these  latter  days  men 
openly  call  in  question  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of  some 
parts.     The  only  course  open  to  the  apologist  is  to  accept  the 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  33 

challenge.  It  matters  not  how  the  issue  is  raised,  whether 
through  honest  doubt,  defiant  scepticism  or  intellectual  pride, 
when  once  raised,  it  must  be  met  by  the  defenders  of  the  Old 
Testament;  otherwise  the  inference  will  be  drawn  that  no 
defence  is  possible. 

B.     HIGHER   CRITICISM    ILLUSTRATED   FROM    THE   BOOK    OF   JOEL. 

We  may  illustrate  the  problems  and  method  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism by  a  concrete  case,  the  book  of  Joel.  The  date  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  Bible  or  in  early  literature.  The  only  evidence  available,  the 
internal,  is  differently  interpreted;  hence  the  dates  assigned  vary  from 
^75  to  330  B.  C.  _Why  this  uncertainty?  Chiefly  because  there  is  no 
fixed  and  unquestioned  starting-point.  How  do  the  critics  proceed? 
They  examine  every  word,  phrase,  historical  statement  and  scrap  of 
information  which  can  possibly  be  regarded  as  indicating  date;  in  the 
light  of  the  material  gained,  they  construct  a  theory  to  account  for  the 
greatest  number  of  facts.  It  is  assumed  that  the  writer  will  uncon- 
sciously reflect  the  customs,  ideas  and  peculiarities  of  his  age;  but 
some  works,  as  the  Pentateuch,  Job,  Joel,  are  so  devoid  of  precise 
references  to  contemporaneous  events  that  keen-eyed  critics  and  learned 
antiquarians  are  not  agreed-  on  the  significance  of  the  internal  evidence. 

In  the  case  of  Joel  the  facts  are  substantially  as  follows,  i.  He 
refers  to  Tyre,  Sidon,  the  Philistines,  Javan,  Sabaeans,  Egypt  and 
Edom;  he  makes  no  reference  to  Assyrians,  Syrians,  or  Chaldeans;, 
the  Ten  Tribes  are  not  mentioned.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  term  Israel 
in  2 :  27  and  3 :  16  means  the  Northern  Kingdom,  or  stands  for  Judah 
after  the  deportation  of  the  Ten  Tribes  (721).  2.  The  name  of  the 
king  is  not  mentioned,  but  elders  are  alluded  to.  3.  The  valley  of 
Jehoshaphat  is  mentioned,  presumably  from  the  king  of  that  name. 
4.  Jehovah's  people  is  "a  reproach  among  the  nations,"  2 :  19  and 
Israel  is  "scattered  among  the  nations",  3:3.  5.  "Egypt  shall  be  a 
desolation,  and  Edom  shall  be  a  desolate  wilderness  for  the  violence  to 
the  children  of  Judah",  3 :  19.  From  such  data  the  critics  agree  that 
the  composition  is  either  early  (before  736)  or  late  (after  500).  The 
problem  is  thus  narrowed  to  the  question,  whether  an  early  or  a  late 
date  best  suits  all  the  conditions." 

The  arguments  for  determining  the  date  cluster  around:  (i)  The 
Style  and  Language;     (2)   The  Historical  Situation. 

I.  The  Style  and  Language. 

"The  language",  says  Koenig,  "is  of  such  a  character  that  it 
may  most  properly  be  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  chief 
period  of  O.  T.  literature",  i.  e.  comparatively  early.  "The  style 
of   Joel    is    clear   and    of    a    high    order,    and   the    language   compara- 

^  Since  no  mention  is  made  of  Syria,  Assyria,  or  Babylon,  and  since  from 
the  time  of  Amos  (760)  to  the  Exile  of  Judah,  one  or  the  other  of  these  powers, 
is  constantly  mentioned  by  the  prophets,  it  is  inferred  that  Joel  wrote  before 
Assyria  began  to  threaten  the  chosen  people,  or  after  Babylon  ceased  to  be  dan- 
gerous; that  is  the  date  is  prior  to  circa  750  (Eichhorn,  Credner,  Hitzig,  Ewald, 
Schrader,  Orelli,  Dillmann,  Baudissin,  Koenig) ;  or  later  than  the  fall  of  Baby- 
lon, 536,  (Vatke,  Merx,  Stade,  Kuenen,  Cornill,  Wellhausen,  Driver,  Cheyne, 
Wildeboer,   Nowack,   W.    R.   Harper). 

3 


34  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

lively  pure''  (G.  G.  Cameron,  Hast.  Bib.  Die).  "The  style  of  Joel 
is  bright  and  flowing;  and  the  contrast,  which  is  palpable,  with  Haggai 
or  Malachi,  is  no  doubt  felt  by  many  as  a  reason  against  the  view  that 
his  prophecy  dates  from  the  same  general  period  of  the  history" 
(Driver,  Lit.).    The  language  would  seem  to  favor  an  early  date. 

2.  The  Historical  Situation. 

(i).  Arguments  for  the  early  date  are:  a.  The  position  of  Joel 
in  the  series  of  Minor  Prophets  (Hosea,  Joel,  Amos)  favors  the 
early  date.  b.  In  the  time  of  Joel  the  Temple  service  was  regular- 
ly maintained,  the  priests  were  highly  esteemed,  etc.  Hence  about 
775.  c.  This  period  agrees  best  with  the  absence  of  reference  to 
Syria,  etc.  Only  a  pre-Exilic  writer  would  mention  Tyre,  Sidon 
and  Philistia  as  among  the  enemies  of  Israel,  d.  There  is  a  pos- 
sible historical  allusion  in  "the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat"  (2:  2,  12)  to 
the  great  victory  of  Jehoshaphat  over  Aloab  (2  Chron.  20:  1-20),  when 
Jehovah  fought  for  his  people  (860).  This  triumph,  fresh  in  the  minds 
of  all,  may  have  suggested  the  language  and  imagery  of  the  prophet, 
e.  Joel  has  no  reference,  direct  or  indirect,  to  events  of  the  Persian  or 
Greek  periods.  This  is  unaccountable  if  the  book  is  late.  f.  Amos  i : 
2  and  9 :  13  clearly  imply  Joel  3 :  16  and  3 :  18  respectively,  for  the  Joel 
passages  suit  the  context  better,  g.  The  term  Israel  2:  17;  3 :  16  is  a 
generic  name  of  Judah,  current  before  and  after  the  defection  of  the 
Northern  Kingdom.^^ 

{2).  The  arguments  for  a  late  date  are:  a.  "I  shall  bring  back  the 
captivity,  etc.,"  implies  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  b.  In  Joel,  Judah 
and  the  people  of  Judah  are  synonymous  terms.  Northern  Israel  has 
disappeared.  Under  Joash  the  limitation  of  the  people  of  Jehovah  to 
Judah  is  wholly  inconceivable.  Hence  the  book  was  written  after  721. 
c.  The  mention  of  priests,  and  the  non-mention  of  kings  and  princes 
cannot  be  accounted  for  by  dating  the  book  during  the  minority  of 
Joash.  d.  The  assumption  of  a  period  before  the  eighth  century  when 
spiritual  prophecy  had  full  sway  is  not  consistent  with  history,  e.  Since 
the  ritual  is  represented  as  in  full  force,  the  book  is  later  than  Ezekiel 
(582)  and  the  Le\4tical  legislation,  f.  The  attitude  of  the  prophet 
toward  the  heathen  nations  implies  an  approach  toward  the  exclusive- 
ness  of  later  Judaism." 

3.  Inferences  and  Deductions. 

Such  is  in  general  the  method  pursued  in  ascertaining  the  date. 
We  first  examine  the  language  in  the  hope  that  some  word  or 
phrase  known  to  have  been  used  in  a  certain  period  may  furnish 
a  clue  to  the  age.  In  this  case  the  evidence  inclines,  though  not 
without  exception,  to  the  early  date.  Then  we  examine  the  histori- 
cal setting.  Here  the  material  is  limited  in  extent,  for  the^  book 
has    only    three    chapters    of    73    verses    and    contains    comparatively 

12  The  claim  that  the  phrase  "the  sons  of  Javan",  i.  e.  the  Greeks,  implies 
a  late  date,  may  be  offset  by  the  view  of  Baudissin:  "It  is  not  clear  why  it  may 
not  have  come  to  pass  in  the  ninth  or  eighth  century  B.  C.  that  the  Phoenicians, 
who  from  early  times  had  business  relations  with  Greece,  and  perhaps  also  the 
Philistines,   may   have   sold   prisoners   of  war  to   the   Greeks"    {Einl.   493). 

"  In  (2)  above  we  have  drawn  largely  on  the  article  "Joel"  in  the  Ency 
Bib.   which   is   a   fair   statement   for   that   side. 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  35 

few  references  to  contemporary  circumstances.  But  intensively  the 
field  is  broad,  for  Joel  is  rich  in  imagery  and  developes  his  central 
thought,  "the  day  of  Jehovah",  with  wonderful  scope  and  suggestive- 
ness.  Since  his  prophecies  outline  the  future  course  of  Israel's  history, 
critics  of  one  school  place  him  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  writing 
prophets,  those  of  another,  near  the  close.  Broadly  speaking  he  fits 
in  in  either  place;  at  least  no  one  may  dogrnatically  affirm  that  the 
case  is  thus  or  so.  It  is  a  matter  of  literary,  historical  and  theological 
investigation,  and  doubtless  sooner  or  later,  Biblical  scholars  will  be 
able  to  settle  the  question  one  way  or  the  other.  We  have  dwelt  thus 
minutely  on  this  one  book  with  the  intent  that  the  reader  may  gain  a 
clear  idea  of  some  of  the  problems  and  difficulties  of  Old  Testament 
Higher  Criticism.^* 

C.     THE  NAME  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCIENCE. 

The  plirase  Higher  Criticism  was  used  originally  in  con- 
trast with  Lower  Criticism  as  denoting  a  more  subtle  and  deli- 
cate weighing  of  evidence.  With  the  constantly  enlarging 
scope  of  criticism,  it  has  come  to  involve  far  more  important 
doctrinal  consequences  than  the  Lower  Criticism.  But  the 
phrase  is  unfortunately  chosen,  since  as  merely  antithetic  to 
something  else,  it  explains  nothing  and  invites  all  kinds  of  mis- 
leading inferences.  The  name  itself,  the  confusion  in  the  pub- 
lic mind  as  to  its  real  nature,  and  the  revolutionary  views  of 
some  critics,  have  brought  the  whole  science  into  widespread 
odium. 

I.  Literary   Criticism. 

Some  have  suggested  the  phrase  Literary  Criticism,  but 
this  is  employed  in  various  senses.^^  The  aim  here  is  not 
the  criticism  of  the  literary  qualities  of  the  Old  Testament. 
W-e  do  not  ask  primarily  whether  the  writing  awakens  emo- 
tions of  beauty  and  pleasure,  and  belongs  to  the  sphere  of 
high  art;  whether  it  is  the  work  of  a  master,  or  of  a  nov- 
ice ;  whether  it  is  good  prose,  or  bad  poetry.  These  sub- 
jects  are  dealt  with  only  incidentally  as  a  means  of  solving 
the  problems  of  origin,  composition  and  religious  value.     The 

"  The  question  of  the  date  of  Joel  is  a  part  of  other  inter-related  subjects. 
Thus,  since  the  Levitical  laws  relating  to  worship  seem  to  be  in  force,  the  whole 
question  of  the  date  of  the  Priest  Code  is  brought  to  bear  on  the  discussion. 
Those  who  adopt  the  Dillmann  view  of  the  early  date  of  P,  consider  the  refer- 
ences to  the  ritual  as  entirely  consistent  with  an  early  date;  but  "almost  all 
who  place  that  legislation  later  than  Ezekiel,  are  agreed  that  the  book  of_  Joel 
is  also  late"  (Ency.  Bib.  col.  2495).  As  one's  view  of  a  subject  is  conditioned 
by  the  system  of  thought  in  which  he  moves,  the  literary  analysis  is  affected  by 
the  philosophical   and  theological  postulates  of  the  critic. 

15  "Any  critical  process  which  deals  with  literature  is  called  literary  criti- 
cism" (Gayley  and  Scott,  Literary  Criticism).  The  purpose  of  literary  criti- 
cism, as  usually  understood,  is  to  point  out  what  in  literature  is  good  and  what 
bad;  to  interpret  and  make  clear  what  is  obscure;  to  regulate  literary  taste;  and 
to  give  some  idea  of  the  scope  and  character  of  a  book. 


36  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Old  Testament  may  indeed  be  viewed  as  literature,  but,  as 
Moulton  has  pointed  out,  Hebrew  literature  has  certain  dis- 
tinguishing features.  First,  "it  has  not  developed  a  separate 
and  distinct  drama.  The  reader  of  the  Bible  knows  that  he 
will  find  in  it  no  acted  play  like  the  plays  of  Shakespeare" 
(Lit.  Study  of  Bible,  iii).  Again,  prophecy  is  a  special  de- 
partment of  Hebrew  literature.  "The  distinction  of  prophecy 
is  not  one  of  form,  but  of  spirit :  Biblical  prophecy,  in  a  sense 
that  belongs  to  no  other  class  of  literature,  presents  itself  as  an 
actual  divine  message"  (ihid,)}^  Since  the  Old  Testament 
constitutes  a  special  kind  of  literature,  the  phrase  ''Literary 
Criticism"  is  too  narrow  and  inexact  for  the  science  under 
review. 

2.  Historical  Criticism. 

Others  have  preferred  the  term  Historical  Criticism. 
Since  the  Old  Testament  contains  historical  books  and  not 
a  little  history  in  the  other  books,  the  question  arises  whether 
we  may  not  go  back  of  the  records  and  inquire  into  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  statements,  and  use  such  material  as  an  in- 
dex of  the  age  and  authorship.  Under  this  view  the  in- 
quiry may  take  wide  range,  for  one  critic  may  call  in  ques- 
tion one  part  of  the  narrative,  another  another,  until  prac- 
tically every  chapter  and  verse  is  challenged  on  one  ground 
or  another.  In  recent  years  critics  have  questioned  the  correct- 
ness of  so  many  statements  and  professed  to  be  able  to  readjust 
Old  Testament  history  at  so  many  points  that  on  their  theory 
little  of  history  remains.  Thus  understood,  the  kernel  of  the 
modern  view  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  reconstruction  (often  a 
destruction)  of  what  was  formerly  regarded  as  historical.  The 
historicity  of  the  Old  Testament  is,  therefore,  regarded  by  some 
as  the  central  problem  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

3.  Literary-Historical   Criticism. 

Since  the  analysis  of  the  Old  Testament  (and  especially 
the  Pentateuch)  into  documents  is  no  less  essential  to  the 
critical  process  than  the  determination  of  the  historical  data, 
most  German  and  English  writers  use  the  phrase  Literary- 
Historical,  which  expresses  at  least  two  important  phases  of 
the  movement.      As   a  matter  of   fact,   however,   Old   Testa- 

"  Moulton  would  restrict  literary  criticism  to  a  study  of  the  form  and 
spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  and  leave  to  historical  criticism  the  other  questions 
of  the  Higher  Criticism. 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  37 

ment  criticism'  has  come  to  include  every  kind  of  investiga- 
tion, literary,  historical,  linguistic,  psychological,  archaeolog- 
ical, comparative,  philosophical  and  theological,  and  has  in- 
vaded every  department  of  inquiry  in  the  search  of  light  on 
the  Old  Testament  religion.  At  bottom  it  is  less  a  literary 
and  historical,  than  a  philosophical  movement,  and  ultimate- 
ly it  must  be  fought  out  on  philosophic  lines.  Since,  as  mat- 
ters now  stand,  everything  in  heaven  and  earth  is  brought  in- 
to the  drag-net  of  this  branch  of  Biblical  study  and  since  no 
altogether  satisfactory  term  has  been  proposed,  we  personally 
prefer,  though  with  some  reluctance,  to  retain  the  old  phrase 
''Higher  Criticism",  as  under  present  conditions  the  most  sug- 
gestive and  comprehensive,  without  thereby  indicating  any  par- 
ticular school,  whether  conservative  or  radical,  Grafian  or  anti- 
Grafian,  since  all  are  higher  critics  in  one  sense  or  another. 

D.     THE    METHOD    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

In  the  absence  of  external  proof,  criticism  is  driven  to 
argue  from  internal  peculiarities  usually  classed  as  literary, 
historical  and  theological. 

I.    The  Literary  Method  or  Argument. 

(i).  Vocabulary  and  Style.  It  is  well  known  that  each 
person  has  a  more  or  less  definite  stock  of  words  and  phrases 
which  are  employed  to  express  the  most  diverse  thoughts  and 
feelings. ^^  This  peculiarity  runs  through  Hterature  in  greater 
or  less  degree  and  is  seized  upon  by  the  critic  as  an  index  of 
authorship.  On  the  basis  of  vocabulary  and  style  we  have  two 
antagonistic  views  regarding  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
One  view  is  that  if  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  it  would  all 
be  written  in  the  same  style,  but  since  the  difference  of  style 
is  great,  we  must  assume  a  plurality  of  authors.  The  other 
view  is  that  the  difference  in  style,  though  marked,  is  not  of 
such  a  character  as  to  demand  a  plurality  of  authors.  Dr. 
Briggs  formulates  the  rule  thus :  "Differences  of  style  imply 
differences  of  experience  and  age  of  the  same  author  [and 
difference  of  subject],  or  when  sufficiently  great,  difference  of 

"  If  one  were  to  prepare  lists  of  key-words  in  a  book  it  would  be  found 
that  the  tendency  is  toward  the  recurrence  of  certain  words  revealing  the  age 
and  view-point  of  the  author.  This  peculiarity  is  especially  noticeable  in  the 
Hebrew  Old  Testament,  Books  not  being  plentiful,  writers  were  left  to  choose 
their  own  stock  of  words.  Sometimes  when  the  right  word  was  found  it  was 
used  on  similar  occasions  afterward  without  fear  of  the  charge  of  tautology. 
This  led  to  a  certain  monotony  of  expression,  objectionable  stylistically,  but  help- 
ful to  the  critic. 


38  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

author  and  of  period  of  composition".  The  question  is  whether 
the  difference  in  style  in  the  Pentateuch  is  so  great  as  to  prove 
difference  of  authorship. 

The  divisive  critics  claim  to  have  discovered  such  a  wide 
difference  in  the  words  and  phrases  of  the  Hexateuch  as  to 
demand  a  partition  into  the  documents  described  above.  The 
argument  is,  however,  vitiated  somewhat  by  the  view  now 
commonly  held  by  these  critics  that  the  documents  are  the  pro- 
duct of  "schools"  shading  into  each  other. ^^ 

(2).  Value  of  Argument  from  Style.  Under  certain  con- 
ditions the  argument  from  literary  quality  may  be  safely  used. 
Such  is  the  case  when  a  writing  is  known  to  emanate  from  a 
certain  author  who  is  also  reputed  to  have  written  other  works. 
We  may  then  examine  the  peculiarities  of  his  style  and  phrase- 
ology and  conclude  that  another  work,  brought  into  relation 
with  it  and  exhibiting  in  a  marked  degree  the  same  peculiarities, 
probably  emanates  from  the  same  source.  But  even  here  we 
cannot  reach  absolute  certainty,  for  it  has  been  shown  that 
the  known  works  of  an  author  may  differ  widely  from  each 
other  in  language  and  style.^^ 

In  Pentateuch  criticism  the  situation  is  indescribably  com- 
plicated. We  have  scarcely  any  unchallenged  starting-point 
for  the  dissection  into  documents.  The  critic  examines  the 
literary  phenonena,  classifies  words  and  phrases,  conceives  that 
such  and  such  expressions  proceed  from  one  author,  such  and 
such  from  another,  and  concludes  that  the  Pentateuch  must  have 
been  compiled  from  the  documents  J,  E,  D,  and  P.  The  anal- 
ysis is  made  to  correspond  to  the  assumed  characteristics  of  the 
four  hypothetical  writers,  and  the  parts  not  agreeing  with  the 
analysis  are  simply  considered  as  supplied  by  the  ever  present 
editor.  Curious  results  are  obtained  if  we  apply  such  a  test 
to  EngHsh  writers.^*^     Thus,  Bacon's  later  writings  surpass  the 

^*'  Driver  finds  41  characteristic  expressions  in  D,  50  in  P  and  20  in  H; 
Holzinger   125  in  J  and   198  in   E. 

"  This  has  been  illustrated  from  the  Latin  poet  Horace.  The  "Ars  Poetica" 
contains  many  words  and  phrases  not  found  in  his  other  writings:  as  ah  ovo, 
in  medias  res,  ore  rotundo,  ad  uugucm,  vivas  voces,  sagax  rerum,  sesquipedalia, 
laudator  temporis  acti,  the  simile  of  the  mountain  and  the  mouse,  and  the  prov- 
erb, occupct  extremum  scabies,  all  of  them  often  quoted.  One  might  suppose  that 
having  used  these  expressions  once,  Horace  would  use  them  again;  but  the  fact 
is  that  a  writer  of  the  first  rank  might  use  least  often  that  which  we  most 
admire.  Another  strange  fact  is  that  this  poem  is  preceded  by  two  others  of 
similar  style  and  character,  and  yet  its  vocabulary  is  entirely  unique.  Accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  some  Grafian  critics  these  Hapax  legomena  indicate  a 
different  autl^or;  but  how  utterly  absurd  to  reject  the  traditional  authorship  on 
any  such  ground  I 

^**  Koenig   reminds    us    that    the    results    of   such    criticism    may    be    challenged 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  39 

earlier  in  vigor  and  variety.  So  in  the  case  of  Burke,  whose 
style  at  twenty  was  ''simple  and  unadorned;  at  forty  it  was 
rich  and  copious;  at  fifty  ornate  and  florid,  and  at  seventy 
gorgeous".  The  prose  writings  of  Milton  differ  so  much  from 
the  'Taradise  Lost"  that  if  style  alone  were  considered  it  would 
appear  that  he  could  not  have  written  both.-^ 

Similar  strange  results  follow  from  an  examination  of  the 
style  of  Old  Testament  books  of  known  authorship.-^ 

It  is  generally  conceded  by  the  Grafians  that  the  evidence 
from  style  alone  is  not  conclusive.  Cheyne  says :  "Linguis- 
tic arguments  do  not  furnish  a  positive  or  conclusive  argument." 
So,  too,  Kuenen.-^ 

2.    The  Historical  Method  or  Argument. 

(i).  Direct  Reference.  The  validity  of  the  historical  ar- 
gument is  based  on  the  claim  that  a  document  reflects  the 
character  of  its  age.  Thus  a  book  containing  references  to 
contemporaneous  events  recorded  in  other  works,  or  to  per- 
sons known  to  have  lived  at  a  certain  time,  originated  in  or 
subsequent  to  that  age.  The  principle  is  that  an  author  uncon- 
sciously reflects  the  peculiarities  of  his  environment,  much  as 
men  today  conform  to  the  ideas  of  their  time.  When  an 
ancient  writer,  however  remote,  refers  directly  to  events  of  his 
time  or  indicates  the  internal  between  his  and  an  earlier  age, 
or  even  in  a  casual  way  alludes  to  events  recorded  by  other 
writers,  the  critic  has  a  definite  period  and  may  reason  thence 


at  many  points  "by  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  comparatively  small  body 
of  Hebrew  literature  and  the  absolutely  certain  date  of  only  a  fraction  of  the 
O.  T.  The  critic  has  therefore  only  a  relatively  small  amount  of  material  of 
unquestioned  date  as  his  point  of  departure,  and  may  err  by  attaching  too  much 
or  too   little  significance   to   one  or  another  part  of  the  writing"   (Einl.). 

21  On  the  same  principle  Scott's  "Ladv  of  the  Lake"  and  the  "Life  of 
Napoleon"  were  written  by  two  different  persons;  and  Byron's  "Don  Juan", 
"Childe  Harold",  and  "English  Bards  and  Scotch  Reviewers"  by  three  persons. 
Similar  difficulties  arise  in  French  and  German  literature.  On  the  principle  of 
the  Grafians,  the  "Pucille",  the  "Henriade"  and  the  "Charles  XII"  of  Voltaire 
were  written  by  three  distinct  authors.  And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  second 
Part  of  Goethe's  "Faust"  compared  with  the  First,  and  even  sections  in  the 
First   part   compared   with    each   other? 

22  Thus  the  divisive  critics,  while  admitting  the  genuineness  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  first  39  chapters  of  Isaiah,  deny  that  the  last  27  are  by  Isaiah.  The 
Isaian  origin  of  chapter  one  is  universally  admitted.  But  it  is  found  that  the 
surprisingly  large  number  of  45  words  occur  only  in  chap,  one  and  chaps.  40-66. 
It  would  follow,  therefore  either  that  the  Isaian  authorship  of  chas.  40-66  must 
be  conceded,  or  that  of  chapter  one  denied.  Either  alternative  is  fatal  to  the 
argument   from   style. 

2s  "The  extant  Israelitish  literature  is  too  limited  in  extent  to  enable  us  to 
determine  the  age  of  any  work  with  certainty  from  mere  considerations  ot  lan- 
guage and  style"   (Hexat.). 


40  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

as  to  the  exact  date  of  a  writing.-*  Strangely  enough  a  very 
considerable  part  of  the  Old  Testament  lacks  local  and  con- 
temporaneous color.  The  writers  were  thoroughly  absorbed 
in  their  theme  and  looked  on  the  inner  rather  than  the  outer 
world.  They  were  not  always  men  of  affairs  in  the  political 
sphere.  They  took  little  or  no  note  of  current  happenings; 
they  lived  apart  from  the  great  streams  of  history,  caring  lit- 
tle for  anything  beyond  their  immediate  horizon.  Communi- 
cation with  the  outside  world  was  difficult  and  infrequent; 
news,  even  of  the  rise  and  fall  of  dynasties,  of  great  battles  and 
world-conquests,  traveled  slowly  and  sometimes  never  reached 
their  ears.  This  is  true  especially  of  the  Hebrews  from  the 
time  of  Abraham  to  Joseph  and  from  Moses  to  David.  All 
this  increases  the  difficulty  of  estabHshing  the  date  of  early  Old 
Testament  writings. 

(2).  Proof  from  the  Subject-Matter.  Doubt  arises  regarding  the 
date  of  some  books  because  the  references  to  local  and  contem- 
porary events  are  so  meager  and  general  that  they  may  be  differ- 
ently interpreted.  Here  the  method  is  much  the  same  as  in  deter- 
mining the  authorship  of  anonymous  or  pseudonymous  books.  It 
has  been  found  that  of  the  ten  thousand  anonymous  books  of  the 
world,  no  well  attested  case  exists  of  a  book,  the  approximate  date  of 
which  was  not  ultimately  determined  by  criticism.  Even  the_  most 
astute  and  accomplished  literary  imposter  invariably  betrays  his  age 
and  century  by  slips  in  language,  geography,  or  place  and  time  of  com- 
position. He  invariably  attributes  to  his  assumed  chronological  period 
some  custom,  law  or  institution  which  is  known  to  have  originated 
later.  The  ill-success  of  Chatterton  and  Macpherson  (Ossian)  might 
be  cited  in  proof  of  the  rule.  The  Old  Testament  critic  may  apply  this 
canon  in  two  ways.  He  may  point  out  that  the  book  in  question  exhib- 
its marks  of  a  later  age.  In  that  case  he  will  inquire  whether  such 
phenomena  are  few  and  scattered,  or  numerous  and_  characteristic.  In 
the  former  event  he  may  allow  that  the  book  is  genuine,  but  that  words 
and  even  paragraphs  were  inserted  afterward  (so  the  conservative  crit- 
ics) ;  in  the  latter  he  would  hold  that  the  work  is  a  compilation  of  late 
date  (so  the  Grafians), 

(3).  Argument  from  Anachronisms.  The  argument  from  ana- 
chronisms (i.  e.  errors  in  assigning  the  date  of  an  event)  has  been 
used  as  a  means  of  disproving  the  alleged  date  of  a  book.  Thus  the 
use  of  the  word  cannon  in  Shakespeare's  King  John  is  an  anachronism, 
as  cannon  were  not  employed  in  England  until  a  century  after  his 
reign.  How  can  the  critic  base  an  argument  on  anachronisms?  As 
follows.  If  a  book  mentions  an  event  (predictive  prophecy  excepted), 
the  book,  or  at  least  the  part  in  which  the  statement  is  made,  must  be 
later  than  the  event.  It  is  of  course  possible,  and  in  some  instances 
probable,  that  the  book  is  earlier  than  the  sentence  in  question,  and  that 
the  latter  is  a  later  addition. 


"  By   this    method   the   date   of   the    book    of    Amos    is   fixed    at    760,    and   the 
"Song  of  Deborah"    1150 — iioo,   B,   C. 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.  4I 

Literary  impostures  have  often  been  exposed  by  the  argument  from 
anachronisms.  This  was  the  method  pursued  by  Richard  Bentley  in 
establishing  the  spuriousness  of  the  so-called  "Epistles  of  Phaleris'V 
He  showed  that  the  Epistles  mentioned  towns,  words,  events,  and 
authors  not  in  existence  until  long  after  the  time  of  Phaleris.  Bentley's 
line  of  argument  opened  a  new  era  in  scholarship,  and  he  is  really  the 
founder  of  literary  and  historical  criticism,  rather  than  Wolf  (Proleg. 
ad  Homeriim),  as  Germans  admit.  His  success  in  this  field  filled  the 
learned  world  with  astonishment,  since  for  fifteen  centuries  the  Epistles 
had  universally  been  regarded  as  genuine. 

The  same  argument  has  been  applied  to  the  Pentateuch,  but  to  the 
writer  it  seems  certain,  that  the  Pentateuch,  even  if  the  theory  of  codes 
in  some  sense  be  allowed,  reflects  so  truly  and  correctly  the  conditions 
of  the  Mosaic  age  and  is  so  devoid  of  anachronisms  (barring  a  small 
number  of  later  insertions)  that  the  bulk  of  its  matter  must  somehow 
have  come  down  from  a  period  far  more  remote  than  the  Davidic. 

(4).  Argument  from  Silence.  The  argument  from  silence  has  been 
employed  more  frequently  perhaps  than  any  other.  But  its  validity 
depends  on  special  circumstances.  Silence  may  imply  different  things 
not  always  easily  determined. 

a.  Matter  Foreign  to  Plan.  As  each  independent  writer  has  his 
own  individuality,  he  is  a  law  unto  himself,  accepting  or  rejecting  as 
deemed  best.  Since  he  cannot  reproduce  all  that  he  knows,  he  omits 
what  is  unessential  to  his  plan.  He  writes  for  the  immediate  present 
and  furnishes  what  seems  the  most  important.  He  is  the  judge  of 
what  is  the  most  suitable  under  the  circumstances,  rather  than  a  critic 
two  thousand  years  later;  and  this,  too,  in  harmony  with  historical 
composition  under  any  view,  for  up  to  a  certain  point,  all  true  literary 
art  is  consciously  unconscious  of  its  processes;  and  so  it  is  absurd 
to  suppose  that  our  ancient  author  sits  down  and  by  a  mathematical 
calculation  determines  what  is  and  what  is  not  to  be  omitted.  And 
yet  critics  go  far  afield  in  the  attempt  to  prove  that  because  an  Old 
Testament  writer  fails  to  refer  to  some  law,  institution  or  mode  of 
worship,  such  institutions  were  not  in  existence.  Nothing  could  be 
more  unscientific  and  unpsychological.^* 

3.    The  Theological  Method  or  Argument. 

Strictly  this  head  ought  to  be  designated  by  some  such 
phrase  as  the  argument  from  thought  or  the  religious  setting, 

25  Phaleris,  a  ruler  of  Agrigentum,  Sicily,  about  550  B.  C,  was  the  author 
of  certain  valuable  Epistles  which  by  some  mischance  were  lost  and  have  never 
been  recovered.  Wishing  to  gratify  a  demand  for  them,  a  Greek  writer  some 
six  or  eight  centuries  later   produced   the   famous,   but  spurious   Epistles. 

28  b.  The  second  form  of  the  argument  is  generally  stated  so  vaguely  that 
it  has  little  force.  If  an  author  neglect  to  state  facts  bearing  on  the  subject  in 
hand  and  materially  modifying,  or  negativing  what  he  says,  it  may  be  inferred 
either  that  he  wrote  before  the  event  took  place,  or  that  he  had  no  knowledge  ot 
it.  Here  again  it  is  only  rarely  possible  to  reach  even  a  provisional  conclusion. 
News  travelled  slowly  in  ancient  Israel;  it  took  longer  in  the  time  of  David  tor 
a  message  from  Damacus  to  reach  Jerusalem  than  to  encircle  the  globe  a  half 
dozen  times  today.  We  can  scarcely  picture  to  ourselves  the  disadvantages  ot 
ancient  writers  in  ascertaining  facts  deemed  valuable  by  us.  What  we  consider 
essential  is  often  an  inference  from  statements  of  authors  whose  judgment  we 
impugn. 


42  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

since  it  refers  to  the  religious  ideas  expressed  or  implied  in  the 
writing.  But  used  in  a  broad  sense,  the  term  is  sufficiently  ex- 
pressive. The  thoughts  of  a  writer  are  indicative  of  his  men- 
tal qualities,  education  and  environment.  Just  as  the  soil  out 
of  which  vegetation  grows  imparts  a  certain  flavor,  so  the 
school  in  which  a  man  is  educated,  or  his  early  associations,  or 
the  literature  read  by  him,  find  expression  directly  or  indirectly 
in  his  writing.  Even  an  original  genius  like  Aristotle,  Shakes- 
peare, Isaiah,  betrays  to  some  extent  the  source  of  his  material. 
So  in  the  strictly  religious  or  theological  sphere,  men  approach 
a  theme  from  different  sides  and  subjective  tendencies.  This 
is  seen  in  the  difference  between  the  books  of  the  Bible :  Isaiah 
compared  with  Jeremiah,  or  Matthew  with  John.  In  Biblical 
theology  the  period  of  the  authors  is  known  at  least  approxi- 
mately, and  the  sameness  or  difference  in  point  of  view  indi- 
cated and  compared.  But  in  criticism  we  are  supposed  to  argue 
from  the  theological  content  of  a  writing  to  its  origin,  which 
is  a  far  more  difficult  and  delicate  undertaking. 

Ciimulative  Value  of  the  Three  Methods.  As  seen  above, 
the  literary  method  alone  yields  no  absolutely  certain  results; 
the  theological  argument  is  scarcely  more  satisfactory,  since  it 
can  be  resorted  to  only  on  the  basis  of  a  provisional  order  of 
the  books  and  of  an  assumed  philosophy  of  history  and  mental 
development,  both  of  which  (in  this  case)  imply  reasoning  in 
a  circle.  The  historical-archaeological  argument  is  the  most 
satisfactory  in  this  field.  When  historical  and  archaeological 
facts,  especially  those  discovered  in  recent  times,  are  brought 
to  bear  on  the  Old  Testament  books  and  point  in  a  certain  direc- 
tion, either  confirming  or  opposing  the  traditional  date,  the 
argument  has  great  and  in  some  cases  a  decisive  value.  So, 
too,  if  the  three  lines  of  argument  converge  to  the  same  point. 

E.     PRINCIPLES    AND    METHOD    OF    PRESENT    INQUIRY. 

Since  our  inquiry  relates  to  a  remote  past  and  the  utmost 
care  is  required,  it  is  necessary  to  note  a  few  general  principles 
in  the  examination  of  and  citation  from,  ancient  records. 
First  Principle:     Essential,  not  Absolute  Historical  Certainty. 

In  dealing  with  the  remote  past,  not  absolute,  but  merely  relative 
certainty,  is  attainable.  Indeed  the  same  is  true  of  comparatively  recent 
history.  The  principle  was  fully  discussed  by  Prof.  E.  A.  Freeman; 
"A  very  little  thought  will  bring  any  of  you  to  see  that  absolute  cer- 
tainty is  unattainable  by  the  very  best  historical  evidence.  .  .  Let  any 
man  take  his  own  personal  experience.  Let  him  begin  at  the  beginning. 
Every  man  fancies  that  he  knows  who  he  is;     but  he  does  not  really 


HIGHER    CRITICISM    OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT.  43 

know  it  for  certain.  He  knows  it  only  as  he  knows  a  fact  of  past 
history.  No  man  can  say  of  his  own  knowledge  that  he  is  really  the 
son  of  those  whom  he  believes  to  be  his  parents ;  he  believes  that  he 
is  so  only  as  he  believes  that  William  the  Conqueror  landed  at  Pevensy; 
he  believes  it  because  he  has  been  told  it  on  what  he  believes  to  be  trust- 
worthy evidence."     (Method  of  Hist.  Study). 

If  the  rules  which  some  critics  apply  to  the  study  of  the  Bible 
were  carried  out  in  daily  life,  everything  would  be  thrown  into  the 
utmost  confusion.  "You  believe,"  says  Freeman,  "that  I  am  Regius 
Professor  of  Modem  History;  I  believe  it  myself.  But  you  have  no 
proof  of  the  fact,  neither  have  I.  Yet  I  did  not  decline  to  act  because 
it  is  possible  that  what  I  believe  to  be  Her  Majesty's  sign-manual 
appointing  me  may  have  been  a  forgery— for  I  certainly  did  not  myself 
see  her  Majesty  sign  it"  (op.  cit.  p.,  152).  "It  has  become  almost  a 
proverb  that  no  two  eye-witnesses  describe  the  same  event  in  exactly 

the  same  way According  to  the  different  turns  of  men's  minds, 

one  man  will  be  most  struck  by  one  aspect  of  what  he  sees  and  another 
by  another;  in  their  reports,  therefore,  there  is  likely  to  be  a  wide  dif- 
ference in  the  relations  and  proportions  in  which  things  are  put"  (ibid, 
124). 

Speaking  of  unlikely  happenings,  Freemian  says :  "A  thing  which 
is  really  physically  impossible  we  do  not  under  ordinary  circumstances 
believe.  But  those  things  which  we  often  loosely  call  impossible  merely 
because  they  are  unlikely,  are  often  the  more  likely  to  be  true  because 
they  are  so  unlikely.  That  is  to  say  they  are  so  very  unlikely  that  no 
one  is  likely  to  have  said  that  they  happened  unless  they  really  did 
happen.  And  when  you  can  say  this,  it  amounts  to  a  very  high  degree 
of  probability  indeed"   (ibid,  128).^^ 

These  observations  of  Freeman  are  manifestly  so  just  and  sensible 
that  is  would  seem  impossible  to  ignore  them ;  and  yet  some  critics 
persistently  and  ignorantly  violate  common-sense  rules.^^ 

Second  Principle:  A  Document  Genuine  Until  Spuriousness  Established. 

A  second  principle  of  investigation  is  that  a  document  coming  down 
from  the  historic  past  is  to  be  considered  genuine  until  its  spuriousness 
is  established.  If  a  man  tenders  me  a  ten  dollar  bill  in  payment  of  a 
debt,  its  genuineness  is  assumed ;  and  I  accept  it  without  question. 
Any  other  course  would  necessitate  an  intricate  line  of  proof.  Hypo- 
thetically  the  bill  may  be  spurious,  but  only  one  in  many  thousand  is 
found  to  be  so.    The  contingency  is  so  remote  that  it  may  be  left  out  of 


_  2T  Freeman  says  further:  "Many  people  think  that  a  proposition  is  proved 
if  it  cannot  be  disproved.  It  is  a  deep  saying  of  Grote  that  if  a  man  chooses 
to  say  that  rain  fell  on  the  site  of  NewYork  on  the  day  of  the  battle  of  Platea, 
no  one  can  prove  that  it  did  not;  only  he  can  not  prove  that  it  did.  That  is 
no  one  can  know  anything  about  the  matter"  {ibid,  144).  What  would  become  of 
some  of  Wellhausen's   arguments   if  this  canon  of  criticism  were  applied? 

2*  Freeman  also  condemns  the  tendency  to  reject  duplicate  narratives:  *'At 
every  step  we  meet  with  something  which  warns  us  that  the  practice  of  rejecting 
a  story  merely  because  something  very  like  it  happened  once  before,  is  one  that 
must  be  used  with  great  caution.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  events  often  do  repeat 
one  another;  it  is  likely  that  they  should  repeat  one  another,  not  only  are  like 
causes  likely  to  produce  like  results,  but  in  events  that  depend  on  the  human 
will  it  is  often  likely  that  one  man  will  act  in  a  certain  way  simply  because 
another  man  acted  in  the  same  way  before  him"   (p.   139)' 


44  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

account.  Likewise  as  to  ancient  records :  they  are  as  a  rule  genuine, 
the  Biblical  no  less  than  the  Babylonian,  Egyptian  and  Assyrian." 

Eduard  Meyer,  author  of  a  number  of  works  on  ancient  history  and 
himself  somewhat  of  a  free  lance,  deplores  the  tendency  of  some  critics 
to  question  in  a  wholesale  manner  the  authenticity  and  credibility  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Later  investigators,  he  observes,  start 
with  the  extant  sources.  If  these  "are  not  in  accord  with  the  hypoth- 
esis, they  are  pronounced  spurious.  This  is  a  very  questionable  proced- 
ure in  the  field  of  historical  investigation;  for  an  historical  document, 
if  genuine,  is  a  witness  which  silences  all  opposition".  It  may  indeed 
happen  that  a  genuine  document  contains  statements  which  at  first 
glance  are  irreconcilable,  but  in  reality  admit  of  explanation ;  in  that 
event  the  document  itself  furnishes  the  key  to  a  more  correct  under- 
standing of  its  statements  and  scope.  "Facts  cannot  be  mastered  by 
hypotheses  and  conjectures.  The  historian  must  first  of  all  search  for 
well-established  facts,  irrespective  of  any  theory  he  may  have  enter- 
tained" (Entstehung  d.  Jtidentiims,  p.,  4). 

Since  the  Old  Testament  writings,  especially  those  prior  to  Ezra, 
have  come  down  to  us  through  the  medium  of  copies,  it  would  be  easy 
to  deny  their  genuineness  and  correctness,  and  demand  absolute  proof. 
Such  is  essentially  the  attitude  of  the  Grafians.  An  hypothesis,  how- 
ever remote  and  unsupported,  is  set  up,  and  unless  proof  can  be  adduced 
that  it  is  false,  its  correctness  is  forthwith  assumed.  The  above  obser- 
vations of  Freeman  neatly  nail  this  kind  of  argumentation  (or  sophis- 
try). Meyer's  comments  are  also  instructive:  "The  task  of  establish- 
ing the  genuineness  of  documents  preserved  by  transcription,  so  that 
doubt  is  silenced,  is,  as  many  examples  from  historical  literature  show, 
no  easy  one.  A  doubt  may  easily  be  expressed;  and  even  if  it  is  wholly 
unfounded,  or  if  the  alleged  arguments  are  immediately  refuted  semper 
aliquid  haeret  ('something  always  sticks').  If  the  original  document 
be  extant,  the  writing  material,  the  palaeography  and  other  details 
furnish  external  proof  of  a  more  or  less  decisive  character  regarding 
genuineness ;  such  proof  is  lacking  in  the  case  of  literary  transmis- 
sion" (Op.  cit.  p.,  4).  Meyer  proceeds  to  show  that  even  in  the  latter 
case  the  document  must  be  regarded  as  authentic,  if  it  be  possible  to 
prove  that  no  motive  for  fraud  exists,  and  that  it  is  intelligible  from 
contemporaneous  circumstances  and  contains  between  the  lines  much 
which  is  not  found  at  all  or  only  partly  in  other  sources,  but  which 
throws  a  new  light  on  the  latter,  and  proves  that  the  document  cannot 
be  a  fabrication  of  a  later  writer"  (ibid). 

Under  these  conditions,  according  to  Meyer,  the  document  must  be 
considered  genuine  and  trustworthy.  Then  follows  the  principle  laid 
down  by  Meyer:  "It  cannot  be  sufficiently  emphasized,  although  it  is 
often  ignored,  that  in  the  case  of  a  document  transmitted  from  the 
historic  past,  the  burden  of  proof  lies  ivith  the  assailants  of  its  gen- 
uineness, not  with  its  defenders".  This  principle  we  regard  as  valid 
for  the  Old  Testament  writings,  the  earliest  no  less  than  the  latest. 

-»  The  few  instances  in  which  Egyptians,  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  fal- 
sified   records   may   be    left   out   of   account. 

'"  The  exact  language  of  Meyer  runs:  "Es  kann  nicht  genug  betont  werden, 
obwohl  es  oft  genug  verkannt  wird;  bei  einem  aus  historischer  Zeit  ueberliefer- 
ten  Dokument  steht  die  Beweispflicht  den  Angreifern  der  Aechtheit  zu,  nicht  den 
Vertheidigern"  (op.  cit.  p.,  6).  Meyer  has  in  mind  more  directly  the  Ezraic 
period,  but  the  principle  is  equally  valid   for  earlier   Old  Testament  history. 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  SEMITIC  PEOPLE  AND  LANGUAGES. 

I. 

THE   PEOPLE. 
I.     PRELIMINARY    STATEMENTS. 

In  determining  the  antiquity  of  Hebrew  writing  and  liter- 
ature, it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  the  historic  situation  from 
which  the  Hebrews  emerged  and  came  upon  the  field  of  his- 
tory. The  Hebrews  were  one  of  a  number  of  Semitic  people 
and  had  racial  affinities  with  many  of  their  neighbors.  The 
roots  of  their  culture  and  civilization  were  imbedded  in  Semitic 
soil.  The  Hebrews,  to  be  sure,  are  commonly  represented  as 
a  separate  and  isolated  people.  This  is  true  ta  a  certain  de- 
gree, for  their  religion  (that  of  the  Old  Testament)  is  sui 
generis.  Nevertheless  in  their  cultural  relations  they  came  in- 
to contact  with  and  under  the  influence  of  the  Babylonians, 
Egyptians,  Amorites,  Canaanites,  Phoenicians,  Aramaeans,  and 
Assyrians,  as  well  as  a  number  of  less  important  people,  as  the 
Hittites,  Moabites  and  Ammonites.  We  accordingly  review 
briefly  the  Semitic  people  and  languages,  their  script,  Egyptian 
writing  and  literature,  Babylonian  writing  and  literature,  sys- 
tems of  writing  and  writing  material  in  ancient  times.  All 
these  subjects  are  important,  if  we  wish  to  ascertain  when  the 
Hebrews  learned  the  art  of  writing  and  began  to  cultivate  liter- 
ature; and  whether  they  employed  the  Egyptian,  the  cunei- 
form or  the  Phoenician  script  in  their  early  history. 

2.     CHARACTER  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  THE   SEMITES. 

The  most  important  of  the  Semitic  people,  as  enumerated 
in  Gen.  lo:  21-30,  are  the  descendants  of  Shem,  viz.  Asshur, 
Arpachshad,  Aram,  Eber,  Joktan  and  Sheba ;  other  people,  not 
descendants  of  Shem,  who  spoke  a  Semitic  dialect,  are  the 
Canaanites  and  Sidonians.  In  whatever  way  Gen.  10:  10 
(Nimrod,  the  founder  of  Babel)  and  11:9  (Babel,  from  con- 
fusion of  tongues)  be  interpreted,  the  fact  remains  that  the 
city  Babel  (Greek  Babylon)  gave  its  name  to  the  people,  who 
next  to  the  Hebrews  played  the  chief  role  in  Semitic  history. 

45 


46  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Babylon  itself  did  not  come  into  prominence  until  about  2000 
B.  C.,  but  thenceforward  its  influence  was  great. 

(i).  The  Babylonians. 

"The  Semites  of  the  East  controlled  the  destiny  of  their 
kindred  of  the  West,  including  Judah  and  Israel,  whose  fate- 
ful history  involved  in  one  supreme  sway  the  well-being  of 
mankind.  Their  influence  in  the  civilization  of  the  race  has 
been  vast  and  far-reaching.  We  are  convinced  of  this  when 
we  consider  the  enormous  antiquity  of  the  culture  of  the  Baby- 
lonians, who,  long  before  Arabs  or  Aramaeans  or  Hebrews 
or  Phoenicians  had  begun  to  be  known,  and  felt  in  the  world, 
had  already  extended  themselves  beyond  the  limits  of  the  lower 
Euphratean  kingdoms,  overspread  the  West-land  and  passed 
over  the  sea  to  Cyprus  —  who  before  the  Hittite  era,  had 
made  the  Semitic  Babylonian  tongue  a  language  of  polite  inter- 
course in  all  the  immense  region  from  the  Upper  Nile  through 
Palestine,  Syria,  and  Mesopotamia,  east  and  south  to  the  Per- 
sian Gulf"  (McCurdy,  Pres.  and  Ref.  Review,  II,  p.,  58).  It 
is  impossible  to  determine  all  the  elements  entering  into  the  for- 
mation of  the  Babylonian  civilization.  Though  perhaps  not  th-e 
originators,  they  were  the  chief  disseminators  of  the  cuneiform 
system  of  writing,  and  were  noted  for  their  culture,  inventive 
genius  and  mental  acumen. 

(2).  The  Assyrians. 

The  Assyrians  were  probably  an  offshoot  of  the  Baby- 
lonians. 'The  name  is  derived  from  the  city  of  Asshur,  which 
was  founded  at  an  unknown  early  date  on  the  west  of  the 
Tigris The  Assyrians  used  the  Babylonian  lan- 
guage in  its  purity.  Indeed  we  usually  call  this  language 
Assyrian,  because  it  was  principally  from  the  monuments  of 
Assyria,  and  not  from  those  of  Babylonia,  that  our  knowledge 
of  it  was  first  obtained.  .  .  .  The  Assyrians  had  virtually 
the  same  institutions  as  the  Babvlonians''  (AlcCurdy,  Hast 
Die.  Bible  v.,  86). 

(3).  The  Aramaeans. 

The  Aramaeans,  the  descendants  of  Aram,  occupied  a  wide 
extent  of  territory.  Their  original  centre  is  uncertain.  ''They 
seem  to  have  been  equally  at  home  herding  cattle  for  the  mar- 
kets of  Babylon,  driving  caravans  along  the  Euphrates,  or  hold- 
ing bazaars  in  the  crowded  cities  of  Harran  and  Damascus. 


THE    PEOPLE.  47 

.  .  .  They  were  par  excellence  the  travellers  and  negotiators 
of  the  ancient  East.  What  the  Phoenicians  achieved  by  sea, 
thev  with  almost  equal  enterprise  and  persistence  attained  on  the 
land"   (McCurdy,  op.  cit.,  86). 

(4).  The  Southern  Semites. 

The  book  of  Genesis  ( 10 :  26-30)  enumerates  other  de- 
scendants of  Shem,  designated  today  as  Arabs  or  Southern 
Semites.  Chief  among  these  are  the  sons  of  Joktan,  or  the 
Joktan  Arabs,  notably  Sheba,  Ophir  and  Havilah.  Since 
Ophir  was  probably  on  the  Eastern  coast  of  Arabia,  Sheba  at 
the  South-west  of  Arabia  and  Havilah  South-west  of  Babylon, 
they  doubtless  represent  Arabian  communities.  The  Biblical 
statement  that  Joktan  was  a  son  of  Eber  (a  descendant  of 
Shemi)  indicates  some  kinship  between  the  Babylonians  and 
Southern  Arabs,  and  this  is  borne  out  by  evidence  from  out- 
side sources. 

(5).  The  Amorites. 

According  to  the  Biblical  narratives  the  Amorites,  who 
were  descendants  of  Canaan  (Gen.  10:  16)  formed  part  of  the 
ancient  inhabitants  of  Palestine  (Gen.  15:  21;  Ex.  3:8,  17; 
23  :  23)  and  occupied  a  wide  extent  of  territory  on  both  sides  of 
the  Jordan  (Gen.  14:  7,  13;  Deut.  1:17,  27).  Joshua  10:  5-6 
mentions  five  kings  of  the  Amorites,  ''kings  of  the  hill-country". 
Amorites  also  dwelt  east  of  the  Jordan  (Num.  21:  13),  the 
Arnon  separating  them  from  the  Moabites.  The  Amorites  are 
represented  in  the  ancient  inscriptions  as  a  powerful  people; 
their  king  Sihon  before  the  immigration  of  Israel  had  conquered 
Moabitish  territory  and  built  the  famous  Heshbon  as  his  cap- 
ital (Nuni.  21:  26).  The  Egyptian  inscriptions  call  the  land 
east  of  Phoenicia  and  north  of  Palestine  ''the  land  of  the 
A-ma-ra".  The  people  of  Amurru  are  mentioned  in  the  Amar- 
na  Letters.  See  chapter  IX  for  an  account  of  the  Canaanites 
and  Phoenicians. 

3.     ORIGINAL    HOME   OF    THE    SEMITES. 

Much  has  been  written  in  recent  years  on  the  original  home  pf  the 
Semites,  but  the  question  is  still  involved  in  obscurity.  According  to 
one  view  the  Semites  came  originally  from  Armenia.  Others  claim 
that  the  Euphrates  valley  or  some  point  in  Babylonia  was  the  original 
seat  of  the  Semites.  This  would  accord  with  a  possible  interpretation  of 
Gen.  11:  1-9.  Others,  as  Pognon,  Sayce  and  Hommel  hold  that  the 
original  home  of  the  Babylonians  (and  inferentially  of  the  Semites 
generally)  was  Arabia.  Some  proper  names  in  the  old  Babylonian  are 
very  similar  to  their  cognates  in   the   Minaean  or  old  Arabic   dialect. 


48  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Thus  the  root  zadugga  in  Ammi-sadugga,  is  not  found  in  the  Baby- 
lonian-Assyrian dialects,  but  is  common  in  the  South-Semitic  lan- 
guages (Arabic,  Sabaean,  Ethiopic)  as  well  as  in  the  Canaanite,  He- 
brew and  Aramaic  languages.  "When  we  seek  for  the  original  home 
of  this  oldest  of  civilized  races  we  are  pointed  to  a  region  in  North 
Arabia,  probably  not  far  from  the  Lower  Euphrates.  The  Semitic  civ- 
ilization is  essentially  of  nomadic  origin.  North  Arabia  is  the  geo- 
graphical centre  of  the  race.  It  is  much  more  likely  to  have  peopled 
the  surrounding  highlands  than  to  have  been  peopled  from  them.  The 
Arabic  language  is  upon  the  whole  nearest  the  primitive  Semitic  speech, 
as  it  is  by  far  the  oldest  and  purest  of  all  living  tongues  [though  its 
literature  is  by  no  means  the  oldest]  and  its  speakers  in  Arabia  belon<y 
to  the  oldest  and  purest  of  races We  assume  that  the  North- 
ern Semites  —  Babylonians,  Aramaeans,  Canaanites  —  lived  long  to- 
gether apart  from  the  Arabs,  who  tended  always  to  the  centre  of  the 
desert"  (McCurdy,  Hast  Die.  V.  87). 

This  view,  held  probably  by  the  majority  of  Semitists,  has  lately 
encountered  serious  opposition.  It  has  been  shown,  especially  by  Ranke, 
that  the  early  settlers  in  Babylonia  were  called  "sons  of  the  West-land", 
or  Amorites,  and  that  such  West-Semitic  expressions  are  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  early  Babylonian  records.  Hence  the  theory  that  in  the 
distant  past,  nomads  from  Syria  and  Mesopotamia  settled  in  Baby- 
lonia and  in  course  of  time  succeeded  in  placing  a  dynasty  upon  the 
throne. 

4,     THE    HOME   OF   THE    NORTHERN    SEMITES. 

Recently  the  thesis  has  been  defended  by  Prof.  A.  T.  Clay 
that  "the  Semitic  Babylonians  came  from  the  land  of  Amurru; 
that  is  Syria  and  Palestine,  and  that  their  culture  was  an  amal- 
gamation of  what  was  once  Amorite  or  West-Semitic  and  the 
Sumerian  which  they  found  in  the  Euphrates  valley.  .  .  . 
Without  attempting  to  determine  the  ultimate  origin  of  the 
Semites,  the  writer  holds  that  every  indication  proves  that 
the  movement  of  the  Semites  was  eastward  from  Amurru^  and 
Aram  (i.  e.,  from  the  lands  of  the  West)  into  Babylonia.  In 
other  words,  the  culture  of  the  Semitic  Babylonians  points,  if 
not  to  its  origin,  at  least  to  a  long  development  in  Amurru  be- 
fore it  was  carried  into  Babylonia"  (pp.,  5,  13).  Prof.  Qay 
argues  cogently  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  culture  and  re- 
ligion heretofore  ascribed  to  the  Babylonians  originated  in  the 
West-land  and  was  carried  eastward  through  war,  commerce 
and  race  migration.  The  traditions  of  the  early  chapters  of 
Genesis,  as  the  creation,  Sabbath,  deluge,  and  ante-diluvians, 
and  the  names  of  the  chief  Babylonian  gods,  as  Alarduk,  Ner- 
gal,  Ninib,  Shamash,  etc.,  are  shown  to  be  of  West-Semitic 
origin.     According  to  Clay,  the  influence  of  Babylonia  in  the 

1  Amurru,  the  Home  of  the  Northern  Semites.     By  A.  T.  Clay,  Ph.   D.,  Phil 
1909.     S.    S.   Times    Co.  '  •       •>  •» 


SEMITIC   LANGUAGES^   AND  SYSTEMS   OF   WRITING.  49 

West,  though  marked,  has  been  greatly  overestimated  by  the 
Grafians  and  Panbabylonists.^ 

Clay's  position  is  a  modification  of  the  view  that  the  Arabs 
first  migrated  into  Mesopotamia  and  Aram,  and  then  split  off 
in  two  directions,  westward  into  Canaan  and  eastward  into 
Babylonia.  The  researches  of  Clay  and  of  others  in  the  same 
field  will  necessitate  a  re-examination  of  the  whole  question  of 
the  origin  and  character  of  the  culture  of  Canaan  in  the  third 
and  second  millennium  B.  C.  The  various  hypotheses,  old  and 
new,  leave  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  Semites  unsettled. 
Enough,  however,  is  known  to  prove  that  Canaan,  in  the  diays 
of  Abraham,  was  far  advanced  in  civilization. 

5.     LIGHT    ON"    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    FROM     SEMITIC    SOURCES. 

It  is  only  within  recent  years  that  students  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  beginning  to  see  the  immense  value  to  be  derived 
from  a  study  of  Semitic  (that  is,  Babylonian,  Assyrian  and 
Arabic)  history,  languages  and  literature.  One  can  scarcely 
understand  the  Old  Testament  in  its  historical  setting  and  sig- 
nificance vrithout  a  thorough  understanding  of  the  civilization 
and  religion  of  the  surrounding  world-powers.  McCurdy  well 
says :  "The  actors  in  and  makers  of  Bible  history  were  Semites, 
who  did  their  deeds  and  said  their  say  within  the  Semitic  realm. 
Further,  the  truth  of  God,  as  revealed  in  the  Bible,  was  not 
merely  conveyed  to  the  world  through  an  outward  Semitic 
channel :  it  was  moulded  in  Semitic  minds,  colored  by  the 
genius  of  Semitic  speech,  and  put  to  the  proof  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  world  in  Semitic  hearts  and  lives.  It  is  perhaps 
enough  to  remind  the  reader  that  Moses,  David,  Elijah,  Amos, 
Hosea,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  St.  John,  St.  Paul,  and  the  Son  of 
Man  Himself,  were  Semites"  (Hast.  Die.  Bib.,  V.,  83). 

II. 

SEMITIC  LANGUAGES,  AND  SYSTEMS  OF  WRITING. 
I.     THE    SEMITIC    FAMILY    OF   LANGUAGES. 

The  Semitic  family  of  languages  may  be  divided  into  two 
main  groups,  the  North-Semitic  and  the  South-Semitic.  The 
most  important  of  the  former  are  the  Babylonian,  Assyrian, 
Aramaic,  Hebrew  and  Phoenician.     As  Hebrew  (the  language 

'  "The  excavations  by  Macalister  and  others  in  Palestine  point  to  the  fact 
that  the  dominant  people  in  the  Westland,  whom  we  call  Amorites,  in  the  millen- 
nium  preceding   the   time    of   Moses,    were   Semites;     and    further   .    .    .   there   are 

4 


50  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

of  the  greater  part  of  the  Old  Testament)  and  Aramaic  (in 
which  parts  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  are  written)  are  sister  dialects 
of  the  Semitic  group,  a  knowledge  of  the  cognate  languages, 
(Babylonian,  Assyrian,  Arabic)  is  essential  to  a  scientific  study 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

2.     THE    HEBREW    LANGUAGE. 

(i).    Origin  of  Hebrew. 

The  origin  of  the  Hebrew  language  is  nowhere  recorded 
and  can  be  determined  only  from  early  remains  of  Hebrew  and 
Semitic  speech  and  from  the  laws  of  language  development. 
As  Ur  of  the  Chasdim  from  which  Abraham  migrated  was  a 
Semitic  centre,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  patriarch  and  his  followers  shows  some  affinity 
with  the  old  Babylonian  and  Aramaic.  It  is  probable  that  the 
tribesmen  and  descendants  of  Abraham  retained  in  a  large 
degree  their  original  speech  and  yet  adopted  words  and  expres- 
sions from  the  surrounding  people.  The  common  Semitic 
basis  would  readily  admit  of  modifications ;  and  thus  the  Ara- 
maic, Phoenician  and  Hebrew  would  come  to  possess  in  the 
lapse  of  time  remarkable  agreement  and  also  remarkable  differ- 
ences. 

The  Biblical  account  of  the  Abrahamites,  though  repre- 
senting a  certain  degree  of  social  contact  with  the  Canaanites, 
portrays  the  patriarch  as  pursuing  his  mission  in  comparative 
independence  of  the  natives.  And  yet  linguistic  elements  were 
undoubtedly  introduced  from  this  source.  That  in  classical 
Hebrew  the  word  for  West  is  jam  (sea),  for  South  negeb 
(dr>Tiess),  for  family  heth  (house),  for  bread  lehem  (food), 
and  so  on,  proves,  not  as  has  been  claimed  by  some  writers, 
that  the  Hebrew  arose  in  Canaan,  but  rather  that  these  and  like 
terms,  were  engrafted  on  the  language  or  were  old  words  used 
in  a  new  sense.  It  is,  however,  remarkable,  that  the  Phoeni- 
cians and  Canaanites,  with  whom  the  Israelites  acknowledged 
no  brotheihood,  spoke  a  language  which  at  least  as  written  dif- 
fers little  from  the  Biblical  Hebrew.  But  this  observation  ap- 
plies to  the  state  of  these  languages  centuries  after  the  call  of 
Abraham.  From  this  one  might  infer  their  original  identity; 
in  reality,  however,  a  careful  study  of  the  Phoenician  reveals 
differences  sufficient  to  constitute  a  distinct  dialect  and  to  favor 


evidences  which  determine  that  in  the  earliest  known  historical  period  the  Amorite 
culture  was  already  fully  developed,  and  that  it  played  an  important  role  in  in- 
fluencing other  peoples"    (Clay,  op.   cit.,  p.,   28). 


SEMITIC   LANGUAGES,   AND   SYSTEMS   OF   WRITING.  5 1 

the  view  that  the  language  of  the  Abrahamites,  as  of  the  Phoe- 
nicians, was  developed  along  normal  lines,  each  of  course  drop- 
ping or  taking  up  words  as  the  genius  of  the  people  prompted.^ 

(2)  Antiquity  of  the  Hebreiv  Language. 

In  the  whole  body  of  the  Hebrew  Hterature  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  language,  so  far  as  appears  from  its  general 
character,  and  irrespective  of  minor  changes  of  form  and  style, 
occupies  essentially  the  same  plane  of  development.  It  prob- 
ably at  an  early  period  assumed  a  fixed  state  as  to  literary 
forms;  and  the  transmission  of  its  literature  in  the  form  of 
books  esteemed  as  sacred  would  tend  to  preserve  the  ancient 
coloring.  The  Hebrew  literature  in  our  possession  extends 
from  about  1500  B.  C.  to  a  few  centuries  before  the  Christian 
era.  In  the  earliest  books  of  the  Bible  the  language  is  in  an 
advanced  state  of  perfection  both  as  regards  the  lexical  and 
grammatical  development  and  the  copiousness  of  words.  The 
later  books  of  the  O.  T.  show  no  marked  superiority  in  the 
language;  and  those  points  in  which  they  differ  often  partake 
of  a  certain  degeneracy  as  if  arising  from  the  influence  of  other 
Semitic  dialects.  The  purest  Hebrew  is  in  the  incontestably 
oldest  Scriptures.  Even  at  the  earliest  period  of  which  we 
have  any  extended  record,  the  language  appears  so  highly  de- 
veloped that  a  considerable  degree  of  literary  activity  must 
have  preceded. 

Naturally  enough  there  is  a  development  in  the  Hebrew  of 
the  Old  Testament,  so  that  some  writers  distinguish  two,  others 
three  periods;  but  the  difference  between  the  early  and  the 
classic  period,  while  noticeable,  may  be  easily  exaggerated. 
Ewald  writes  :  "Hebrew  passed  through  three  successive  stages. 
The  writings  from  the  time  of  Moses  show  Hebrew  already 

*  It  may  be  noted  that  the  old  Assyrian  which  preceded  Aramaic  in  regions 
to  which  the  narrative  in  Genesis  points  as  the  original  home  of  Abraham  is  in 
some  respects  similar  to  the  Hebrew.  As  the  exact  movements  of  the  early 
Semitic  races  are  involved  in  obscurity,  even  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  and 
as  the  Biblical  account  of  the  Israelites  is  brief,  the  data  for  determining  the 
actual  development  of  the  language  in  Canaan  are  meager  and  preclude  a  too 
confident  expression  of  opinion  one  way  or  the  other.  Delitzsch  (Franz)  com- 
ments on  Gen.  31:  47  thus:  "The  Terahites,  who  remained  in  Mesopotamia,  be- 
came acquainted  there  during  the  one  hundred  and  eighty  years  which  elapsed 
between  Abraham's  migration  into  Canaan  and  this  occurrence  on  the  mountain 
of  Gilead  with  the  Aramaic  speech  of  the  country,  but  in  the  family  of  Abraham 
the  Babylonian-Assyrian,  which  differed  less  than  the  Aramaic  from  the  tongue 
of  the  Canaanites  who  had  migrated  there  (from  the  Erythrian  sea)  was  spoken" 
(Com.  on  Gen.,  11,  96).  Such  is  essentially  the  view  of  recent  Hebrew  grammar- 
ians. Koenig  says:  "Aus  seiner  chaldaeisch-babylonischen  Heimath  hat  Abraham 
einen  Dialekt  mitgebracht,  welcher  aehnlich  demjenigen  war,  welchen  vorher  in 
benachbarten  Gegenden  wahrscheinlich  die  Kanaaniter  oder  Phoenicier  bei  ihrem 
Abzuge  nach  Westen  zu  lernen  angefangen  hatten"  (Hebraeische  Sprache,  I,    16). 


52  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

formed  and  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  more  recent  times. 
It  must  therefore  even  then  have  been  very  old.  In  the  second 
period,  dating  from  the  kings,  it  shows  symptoms  of  divergence 
into  two  styles,  an  ordinary  and  a  more  artistic  one.  The  third 
begins  with  the  seventh  century  before  our  era ;  it  is  a  period 
of  decay,  during  which  it  is  constantly  encroached  upon  by  the 
Aramaic  tongue"  (Lehrhuch  d.  Hebr.  Sprache.).  Bissell  says: 
"While  differences  of  style  may  be  recognized  to  some  extent, 
even  within  the  limits  of  the  Hebrew  of  the  Pentateuch  it  is 
often  quite  as  likely  to  be  due  to  a  difference  in  the  matter 
treated  as  to  diverse  authorship  or  date.  In  any  case,  the 
style  of  the  Priest's  Code,  assigned  by  Wellhausen  to  the  Exile, 
must  be  c.dmitted  to  have  the  peculiar  coloring  of  the  most 
ancient  Biblical  Hebrew"  (The  Pentateuch). 

Tht  antiquity  of  Hebrew  is  shown:  (a)  from  archaisms, 
especially  the  names  of  persons  and  places,  and  from  fixed 
forms,  chiefly  in  poetry;  (b)  from  the  phenomena  of  extant 
words,  which  point,  according  to  the  laws  and  analogies  of 
sounds,  to  an  earlier  stage  of  the  language;  (c)  from  a  conir 
parison  of  related  languages,  especially  the  Arabic,  in  which 
the  early  character  of  the  Semitic  (and  Hebrew)  is  largely 
preserved;  (d)  from  the  Canaanite  glosses  in  the  Amarna 
Letters,  which  as  reflecting  the  state  of  the  language  in  the 
fifteenth  pre-Christian  century  furnisti  new  proof  that  the  He- 
brew and  Canaanite  dialects  reached  a  relative  permanence  at 
a  much  earlier  date  than  formerly  supposed. 

3.    DEFINITION  OF  WRITING. 

Since  the  oldest  extant  writings  are  of  Semetic  origin  we 
may  pause  here  to  define  writing.  To  write  means  either  "to 
trace  or  inscribe  on  a  surface  in  letters  or  ideographs  charac- 
ters that  represent  sounds  or  ideas",  or  "to  compose  or  pro- 
duce in  writing"  (Stand.  Die),  especially  as  an  author.  The 
two  senses  are  complementary,  since  to  compose  in  writing  of 
course  presupposes  writing.  If,  however,  to  compose  be  un- 
derstood in  the  sense  of  expressing  thought  in  a  orderly  man- 
ner by  means  of  language,  the  tracing  in  characters  is  no  neces- 
sary part.  Here  the  term  is  used  in  the  former  sense.  Writ- 
ing, though  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  arts,  is  also  one  of  the 
slowest  in  development,  centuries  having  been  required  for  its 
progress  from  the  first  rude  stages  to  its  relative  perfection  in 
the  Phoenician  alphabet.     To  the  layman  phonetic  spelling  is 


SEMITIC   LANGUAGES,   AND  SYSTEMS   OF   WRITING.  53 

a  very  simple  affair,  but  the  student  of  language  knows  that  an 
alphabet  is  the  final  result  of  centuries  of  theory  and  practice 
in  the  use  of  written  characters. 

The  kinds  of  ancient  writing  of  every  description  (pictor- 
ial, hieroglyphic,  syllabic)  are  numerous;  but  all  may  be  re- 
duced to  a  half  dozen  types,  as  the  Chinese,  Hittite,  Aegean, 
cuneiform,  Egyptian  and  Phoenician.  The  first  of  these  hav- 
ing no  direct  influence  on  European  or  Semitic  scripts,  and  the 
second  and  third  not  having  as  yet  been  deciphered,  it  is  only 
the  last  three  which  have  historic  value  in  the  development  of 
writing.     These  we  describe  briefly. 

4.    EXCURSUS  :      CUNEIFORM     OR    BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN    WRITING. 

(i).   General  Character  of  Cuneiform  Writing. 

The  cuneiform  system  of  writing  derives  its  name  from  the  wedge- 
like form  of  the  symbols  (Latin,  cuneus,  wedge).  Originally  the 
wedges  were  carefully  drawn  pictures  resembling  at  least  remotely  the 
objects  imitated.  The  wedges  appear  at  first  glance  as  a  wilderness  of 
short  lines  running  in  all  directions  without  order  or  regularity.  Closer 
examination  reveals  something  of  system.  The  signs  are  arranged  in 
lines  running  horizontally  for  the  most  part,  and  read  from  left  to 
right,  most  of  the  wedges  standing  upright  or  inclining  to  the  right. 
These  wedges,  either  singly  or  in  combination,  represent  ideas,  or 
syllables.     See  Chart,  cols.  I  and  II. 

(2).  Ideograms  and  Phonograms. 

In  cuneiform  writing  one  must  grasp  clearly  the  distinction  be- 
tween ideograms  and  phonograms.  An  ideogram  (Greek,  Idea-writ- 
ing) may  have  more  than  one  meaning,  but  frequently  a  relation,  ideal 
or  physical,  exists  between  the  several  meanings.  Thus  the  sign  for 
booty  stands  also  for  the  verb,  to  capture,  and  the  sign  for  mouth 
represents  the  verb  to  speak.  A  second  and  higher  stage  was  reached 
in  the  phonograms  (Greek,  sound-writing),  which  were  signs  repre- 
senting syllables.  The  phonographic  value  comes  at  once  from  the 
name  of  the  object  represented  by  the  ideogram.  Thus  the  same  sign 
stands  for  risu,  head,  as  an  ideogram  and  for  ris  as  a  phonogram;  the 
ideogram  katu,  hand,  gives  us  the  phonogram  kat.  This  may  be  ap- 
proximately illustrated  in  English  by  the  mnemonic  lines,  "A  is  for  ax, 
B  is  for  box,  C  is  for  cat,  etc.,"  in  which  the  pictures  of  the  ax,  box, 
cat  (ideograms)  also  stand  for  the  initial  sounds.  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  writing  is  in  general  a  union  of  ideograms  and  phonograms 
in  varying  proportions.  About  a  hundred  of  the  phonograms  are  used 
more  than  all  the  rest  combined ;  and  the  student  who  memorizes  these 
thoroughly,  together  with  a  limiited  number  of  ideograms,  and  deter- 
minatives, has  a  good  foundation  for  reading  the  ordinary  historical 
texts.  Many  additional  phonograms  must  be  learned  if  one  wishes  to 
read  the  more  difficult  texts.  The  reading  of  cuneiform  is  greatly 
facilitated  by  the  employment  of  certain  ideograms  called  determina- 
tives,  which   show  the  class   of  objects  to  which  the  world  belongs. 


54  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

They  stand  with  the  names  of  gods,  men,  women,  animals,  rivers,  etc., 
and  serve  to  restrict  otherwise  doubtful  meanings  of  the  signs. 

The  Assyriologist  F.  Delitzsch  writes :  'The  Bab.  cuneiform  script 
underwent  no  essential  change  of  system  during  its  remarkably  long 
period  of  over  3000  years.  It  remained  always  what  it  had  been  from 
the  beginning,  a  mixed  ideographic  and  syllabic  script ;  but  it  under- 
went many  changes  in  the  outer  form  of  the  characters.  The  constantly 
widening  use  of  the  system  required  a  simplification  of  the  complicated 
characters  of  the  archaic  script,  and  there  took  place  systematically  a 
change  from  the  old  to  the  new  Bab.  script,  as  well  as  to  the  new 
Assyrian.  .  .  .  The  oldest  forms  are  assumed  to  be  those  of  Telle 
(de  Sarzec)  and  of  Nippur  (Hilprecht).  The  inventors  were  masters 
in  the  art  of  combining  ideas  and  characters"  (Entstehung  d.  Aelt. 
Schriftsystems).  Delitzsch  reaches  the  conclusion  that  "the  whole 
number  of  Bab.  signs,  out  of  which  the  whole  system  of  410  characters 
was  developed  can  be  reduced  to  45  or  at  most  50".  By  the  varied 
combination  of  these  ideograms  and  phonograms,  the  whole  number 
of  signs  runs  up  into  many  thousands,  rendering  the  dicipherment  of 
some  inscriptions  an  exceedingly  complicated  process. 

(3).  The  Babylonian  Scribe. 

Maspero  vividly  describes  the  Babylonian  scribe :  "The  position 
of  a  scribe  was  an  important  one.  We  continually  meet  with  it  in  all 
grades  of  society,  in  the  palace,  the  temple,  the  store-houses,  the  private 
dwellings;  in  fine  the  scribe  was  ubiquitous,  at  court,  in  the  town,  in 
the^  country,  in  the  army,  managing  affairs  both  small  and  great,  and 
seeing  that  they  were  carried  on  regularly.  His  education  differed  but 
little  from  that  given  to  the  Egyptian  scribe :  he  learned  the  routine  of 
administrative  or  judicial  affairs,  the  formularies  of  correspondence 
either  with  nobles  or  with  ordinary  people,  the  art  of  calculating  quickly 
and  of  making  out  bills  correctly.  Not  papyrus,  but  the  same  clay 
which  furnished  the  architect  with  such  abundant  building  material 
appears  to  have  been  the  only  medium  for  transmitting  the  language. 
The  scribes  were  always  provided  with  slabs  of  a  fine  plastic  clay,  care- 
fully mixed  and  kept  sufficiently  moist  to  take  easily  the  impression  of 
an  object,  but  at  the  same  time  sufficiently  firm  to  prevent  the  marks 
once  made  from  becoming  either  blurred  or  effaced.  When  the  writ- 
ing was  finished,  the  scribe  sent  his  work  to  the  potter,  who  put  it  in 
the  kiln  and  baked  it,  or  the  writer  may  have  had  a  small  oven  at  com- 
mand."    (Daiim  of  Civilization). 

(4).  Priests  as  Scribes. 

_  It  will  throw  light  on  Old  Testament  usage  if  we  recall  that  the 
scribe  was  usually  a  priest  attached  to  one  of  the  temples.  "As  a 
priest  he  was  required  to  have  not  only  a  knowledge  of  the  religious 
rites,  but  also  of  the  ritual,  and  in  connection  with  the  ritual,  of  the 
religious  literature,  consisting  of  hymns,  prayers,  penitential  psalms, 
incantations,  oracles  and  portents.  In  addition  to  the  practical  training 
he  received  for  acting  as  the  recorder  of  commercial  transactions  and 
of  the  orders  of  the  court  and  other  legal  business,  the  young  aspirant 
to  priestly  distinction  had  to  extend  his  knowledge  beyond  mere  ex- 
pertness  in  routine  work.  .  .  .  His  introduction  to  the  literary  treas- 
ures of  a  religious  character  was  the  last   step  in  the  education  he 


SEMITIC   LANGUAGES,   AND   SYSTEMS   OF   WRITING.  55 

received.  .  .  .  What  he  needed  for  understanding  the  hymns  and 
prayers  were  commentaries  explaining  the  different  words  and  pas- 
sages. These  were  either  directly  attached  to  the  texts  themselves, 
being  inserted  as  notes  in  smaller  characters  at  the  proper  place,  or 
special  tablets  were  prepared  to  go  with  the  texts,  in  which  all  the 
comment  needed  was  given.  Such  comment  was  particularly  required 
for  texts  written  wholly  or  in  part  in  the  ideographic  method"  (M. 
Jastrow,  Bib.  World,  IX,  266). 

(s).  Babylonian  Syllabaries. 

The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  studied  their  language  scientifi- 
cally and  bequeathed  a  great  mass  of  material  useful  to  the  modern 
inquirer.  There  was  a  guild  of  philologists,  who  drew  up  lists  of 
signs,  simple  and  compound,  with  their  meanings.  These  lists,  written 
in  three  or  four  columns,  are  technically  called  Syllabaries.^  Fortunate- 
ly some  of  the  Assyrian  text-books  have  been  discovered,  from  which 
it  is  possible  to  form  an  idea  of  the  manner  in  which  the  future  scribe 
learned  his  letters.  Since  it  was  necessary  to  learn  not  merely  the 
usual  meaning  of  the  400  signs,  but  the  many  possible  meanings  in 
different  combinations,  it  was  a  herculean  task  to  become  proficient 
in  writing  and  reading  cuneiform.  Years  of  study  were  required. 
Some  of  the  thousands  of  tablets  in  the  royal  libraries  contained  a  kind 
of  dictionary  of  the  chief  meanings  of  the  signs,  or  of  their  syllabic 
value. 

5.    EXCURSUS  :      EGYPTIAN    WRITING. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  of  the  three  chief  systems  of  writing, 
the  Egyptian.  It  consists  of  three  styles,  the  hieroglyphic,  hieratic  and 
demotic.  The  hieroglyphic,  though  found  occasionally  in  manuscripts, 
is  that  of  almost  all  the  monuments.  The  hieratic  is  a  cursive  form 
of  the  hieroglyphic.  The  hieroglyphic  signs  were  well  adapted  to 
monuments,  but  not  suitable  for  papyrus,  and  so  the  signs  rapidly  as- 
sumed a  shorter  form  used  in  papyrus  rolls.  A  still  more  cursive  form 
was  the  Demotic,  used  at  a  later  period  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life. 
The  hieroglyphic  texts  runs  from  left  to  right,  or  right  to  left,  now  in 
horizontal,  now  in  perpendicular  lines.  Generally  hieratic  papyri  are  in 
horizontal  lines  from  left  to  right. 

(i).  Pictorial  and   Ideographic. 

The  essential  characteristic  of  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  is  that 
all  the  forms  except  those  for  number  were  originally  pictures  of 
objects.  In  looking  at  a  hieroglyphic  text,  we  see  a  multitude  of  pic- 
tures of  men,  women,  human  hands>  eyes,  legs,  birds,  beasts,  insects, 
reptiles,  and  the  like;  also  pictures  not  so  easily  understood,  as  cir- 
cles, squares,  ovals,  curved  lines  and  small  segments  of  circles.  Orig- 
inally the  forms  were  probably  correct  pictures  of  the  objects.  Thus 
the  circle  represents  the  sun,  the  curved  line  the  moon,  the  oval  an  tgg. 
This  kind  01  writing,  called  pictorial,  is  very  primitive  and  is  employed 
by  nearly  every  people  emerging  from  a  semi-barbarous  state.  _  But  the 
Egyptians  early  passed  beyond  this  stage  into  the  ideographic,  in  which 
the  picture  acquires  the  force  of  a  symbol.  Thus  the  circle  represents 
not  only  the  sun,  but  also  day,  or  eternity;    and  a  curved  line  not  only 

*  The  most  complete  of  these  are  printed  in  Delitzsch's  Assyrische  Lesestuecke, 
4te  Auflage,   Seite  83-116. 


56  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  moon,  but  a  mouth;  an  oval  meant  not  merely  an  egg-,  but  a  child. 
Again,  the  forepart  of  a  lion  meant  the  beginning  of  anything,  and  the 
hind-quarters  the  end;  the  figure  of  a  pen  and  ink  stood  for  writing, 
or  a  scribe,  and  so  on.  Other  signs  were  still  more  obscure.  A  bee 
stood  for  a  king,  or  monarchical  government ;  a  vulture  stood  for  a 
mother  (there  being  according  to  the  Egyptians  no  male  vulture,  each 
vulture  was  a  mother),  a  leg  within  a  strap  meant  deceit,  ^nd  an 
ostrich  feather,  justice  (because  all  the  feathers  were  supposed  to  be 
of  equal  length).  "The  idea  of  thirst  was  represented  by  a  calf  running 
toward  water,  power,  by  a  brandished  whip,  and  battle  by  two  arms,  one 
holding  a  shield,  the  other  a  javelin". 

(2).  Phonetic  and  Syllabic  Stage. 

The  practice  of  expressing  ideas  by  pictures  was  early  carried  to 
a  high  stage  by  the  Egyptians.  But  this  method  led  to  such  a  multi- 
tude of  signs  and  pictures,  that  often  uncertainty  arose  as  to  which  one 
of  several  meanings  was  intended  by  the  signs.  In  connected  speech 
there  must  be  sentences  made  up  of  nouns,  verbs,  adjectives  and  other 
parts;  and  syllabism,  however  suggestive,  is  unable  to  express  these. 
Moreover,  ideas  are  so  numerous  and  varied  that  there  would  be  hardly 
enough  signs  "to  go  round."  The  Egyptians  resorted  to  a  happy  ex- 
pedient by  which  symbols  gradually  acquired  a  phonetic  and  syllabic 
value,  the  precursor  of  the  alphabet.  We  may  illustrate  this  by  the 
sentence:  "I  saw  a  boy  swallow  a  goose-berry".  If  we  should  write 
in  succession  the  pictures  of  an  eye,  a  saw,  a  boy,  a  swallow,  a  goose, 
and  a  berry,  the  picture  of  the  eye  would  stand,  rebus-like,  for  the 
pronoun  "I" ;  that  is  it  would  represent  a  sound  or  be  used  phoneti- 
cally. Again,  the  nouns  saw  and  swallow  would  be  read  as  verbs,  "and 
so  on. 

This  comparatively  simple  device  was  soon  elaborated.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  hieroglyphics  are  really  phonetic,  standing  either  for 
syllables  or  letters.  The  Egyptians  like  the  Phoenicians  resolved  speech 
into  its  elements  and  expressed  these  elements  by  signs  which  are  vir- 
tually letters.  In  choosing  the  sign,  they  selected  some  common  ob- 
ject whose  initial  element  was  identical  with  the  sound  they  wished  to 
represent.  "Thus  Akhom  being  the  name  of  an  eagle  in  Egyptian,  the 
eagle  was  made  the  sign  of  its  initial  sound  A ;  the  name  of  an  owl  in 
Egyptian  being  moidag,  the  figure  of  an  owl  was  made  to  express  M. 
But,  unfortunately,  the  Egyptians  did  not  stop  here.  Not  content  with 
fixing  on  one  such  sign  in  each  case  to  express  each  elementary  sound, 
they  for  the  most  part  adopted  several.  An  eagle,  the  leaf  of  a  water- 
plant,  and  a  hand  and  arm  to  the  elbow  were  alike  employed  to  repre- 
sent the  sound  A.  The  sound  B  was  expressed  by  a  human  leg  and 
foot,  and  also  by  a  bird  like  a  crane,  and  by  an  object  resembling  a 
flower-pot.  For  M  there  were  four  principal  signs,  an  owl,  two  parallel 
straight  lines,  joined  at  one  end  by  a  diagonal,  a  form  something  Hke  a 
sickle,  and  a  sort  of  double-headed  baton.  There  were  four  forms  for 
T,  three  for  N,  for  K,  for  S,  for  J,  and  for  H,  while  there  were  two 
for  L,  or  R,  (which  the  Egyptians  regarded  the  same),  two  for  SH, 
two  for  I,  for  U,  and  for  P.  The  letters  F  and  D  were  about  the  only 
ones  that  were  represented  uniformly  by  a  single  hieroglyphic,  the 
former  by  the  cerastes  or  horned  snake,  the  latter  by  a  hand  with  the 
palm  upwards"   (Rawlinson,  Hist.  Anc.  Egypt,  I,).    Egyptian  conso- 


SEMITIC  LANGUAGES,  AND  SYSTEMS  OF  WRITING.  57 

nants  have  their  complementary  vowel  (though  most  consonantal  signs 
can  be  used  with  any  of  the  vowels)  which  may  often  be  -treated  as 
an  expletive.  A  period  of  at  least  a  thousand  years  was  required  for 
the  development  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  stage  of  Egyptian  syl- 
labic writing. 

(3).  Determinatives. 

The  Egyptian  writing,  like  the  cuneiform,  made  use  of  determina- 
tives, generally  after  proper  names.  Thus  a  word  followed  by  the 
picture  of  a  man  represents  his  name;  and  one  followed  by  a  sitting 
figure  with  a  beard  is  the  proper  name  of  a  god.  Classes  and  genera 
are  also  accompanied  by  determinatives.  Thus  the  names  of  classes 
of  birds  are  followed  by  the  figure  of  a  bird,  of  reptiles  by  the  picture 
of  a  snake  and  of  plants  by  a  water-plant.  So  also  of  animals.  Thus 
the  picture  of  an  elephant  followed  by  the  determinative  for  beast 
means  elephant  (yebu);  but  the  same  figure  followed  by  the  sign  of  a 
city  means  the  city  of  that  name,  Yebu  (Elephantine). 

(4).  Selected  Syllables  or  Letters. 

In  course  of  time  the  pictures,  ideograms,  and  phonograms 
reached  the  prodigious  number  of  several  thousand  —  obviously  an 
apparatus  too  unwieldy  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  life.  The  scribes 
came  to  restrict  themselves  to  the  more  appropriate  signs.  At  first 
some  45  characters  were  selected,  but  these  were  finally  reduced  to  25. 
[These  characters  are  given  in  our  Chart,  col.  V.  and  VI].  It  may  be 
observed  that  the  Egyptian  alphabets  which  one  sees  in  different  books 
differ  somewhat  from  the  above  chiefly  because  of  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  characters  employed  to  express  certain  letters. 

(S).  Knowledge   of   Writing  among   the   Common  People. 

Naturally  it  required  hard  study  and  continual  practice  before  skill 
could  be  acquired  in  writing  the  hieroglyphic,  or  hieratic;  and  for  the 
more  difficult  kinds  of  writing  professional  scribes  were  in  demand, 
just  as  in  Babylonia;  but  it  would  appear  that  a  relatively  large  number 
of  the  comrnon  people  in  Egypt  learned  at  least  the  simpler  or  shorter 
forms  of  \vriting.  Maspero  gives  an  interesting  account  of  the  "School- 
boy" at  his  task:  "There  was  no  public  school  in  which  the  scribe 
could  be  prepared  for  his  future  career;  but  as  soon  as  a  child  had 
acquired  the  rudiments  of  letters  with  some  old  pedagogue,  his  father 
took  him  with  him  to  his  office  or  entrusted  him  to  some  friend  who 
agreed  to  undertake  his  education.  The  apprentice  observed  what  went 
on  around  him,  imitated  the  mode  of  procedure  of  the  employer,  copied 
in_  his  spare  time  old  papers,  letters,  bills,  petitions,  reports,  or  com- 
plirnentary  addresses,  all  of  which  his  patron  examined  and  corrected, 
noting  on  the  margin  letters  or  words  imperfectly  written  and  recast- 
ing the  incorrect  expressions.  As  soon  as  he  could  put  together  a  cer- 
tain number  of  characters  without  mistake,  he  was  allowed  to  draw 
bills,  or  to  have  the  sole  charge  of  some  department,  his  work  being 
gradually  increased  in  difficulty.  When  he  was  considered  sufficiently 
au  courant  with  the  ordinary  business,  his  education  was  declared  to 
be  finished".    (Dawn  of  Civ.). 


58  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

6.     NO    TRUE   ALPHABET   PRIOR   TO   PHOENICIAN. 

Neither  the  Babylonians  nor  the  Egyptians  ever  devised  a  true 
alphabet,  although  the  Egyptians  were  near  it,  and  one  would  suppose 
could  have  made  the  transition  at  any  time.  Breasted  holds  that 
alphabetic  letters  were  discovered  in  Egypt  twenty-five  hundred  years 
before  their  use  by  any  other  people.  "Had  the  Egyptian  been  less  a 
creature  of  habit,  he  might  have  discarded  his  syllabic  signs  3500  years 
before  Christ  and  have  written  with  an  alphabet  of  24  letters"  (p.  45). 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  so-called  Phoenician  Alphabet  was 
the  first  to  combine  in  a  simple,  convenient  and  universally  applicable 
system  the  elements  or  letters  necessary  for  the  reproduction  of  sounds ; 
and  as  this  was  the  script  employed  by  the  Hebrews  in  the  historical 
pericKl  it  is  of  interest  to  know  the  date  of  its  origin  (whatever  that 
may  have  been)  and  of  its  adoption  in  Israel.  Chart,  cols.  XII, 
XXVI.  etc. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ANTIQUITY  OF  WRITING  AND  LITERATURE  IN 
EGYPT,  BABYLONIA,  AND  CANAAN. 

I. 

ANTIQUITY  OF  EGYPTIAN    WRITING  AND  LITERATURE. 

Undoubted  proof  exists  that  writing  was  employed  for  literary  pur- 
poses at  a  very  early  period.  The  question  is  not  whether  writing  was 
current  at  the  date  of  the  Exodus,  but  how  many  thousand  years  before 
that  time.  Every  year  the  evidence  increases  that  the  introduction 
of  writing  was  in  a  remote  past.  The  antiquity  of  Egyptian  literature 
is  universally  admitted. 

I.     THE   OLD  EMPIRE. 

The  pyramids  afford  ample  proof  that  a  high  civilization  was 
attained  under  the  kings  of  the  Old  Empire  (3400-2475  B.  C.)  and 
that  literature  flourished.  "A  large  part  of  the  literature  of  Egypt 
comes  down  to  us  in  the  shape  of  historical  inscriptions  graven  upon 
pyramids,  obelisks,  walls  of  temples  and  stelae.  The  sentences  are 
sometimes  short  and  abrupt;  but  frequently  they  have  a  kind  of  rhythm 
which  is  exceedingly  fine,  and,  owing  to  the  parallism  of  members,  re- 
minds us  of  many  of  the  Psalms.  If,  however,  we  were  required  to 
depend  upon  stone  sculptures  for  our  idea  of  Egyptian  literature,  we 
should  not  have  an  adequate  idea  at  all.  Though  the  early  pyramid 
texts  with  their  rubrics  reveal  to  us  the  inscriptions  which  were  fitting 
for  funereal  monuments,  they  give  us  no  idea  of  the  wonderful  fairy 
stories  which  we  obtain  from  the  papyri.  The  hieratic  writing  was  the 
writing  of  the  priests,  and  as  the  learning  of  Egypt  was  locked  up  in 
the  breasts  of  this  caste,  we  must  look  to  their  works  to  understand 
what  the  literature  of  Egypt  was.  It  must  not  be  imagined  that  the 
hieratic  is  the  only  sort  of  writing  found  on  papyrus ;  on  the  contrary, 
we  find  many  papyrus  copies  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  in  hieroglyphics. 
Still,  a  very  large  number  of  the  most  interesting  compositions  are 
found  on  papyrus  in  hieratic"   (Budge,  Dzvellers  on  the  Nile.    99). 

Parts  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  profess  to  date  from  this  early  per- 
iod. Tela,  son  of  the  first  Pharaoh,  according  to  Manetho,  is  said  to 
have  written  a  work  on  anatomy.  A  papyrus  roll  of  the  most  remote 
age,  bought  by  Ebers  in  Thebes,  describes  in  archaic  language  a  famous 
prescription  for  making  the  hair  grow.  More  important  is  the  claim, 
if  correct,  that  the  writings  of  the  Pharaohs  on  medical  subjects  reach 
back  as  far  as  the  first  Dynasty.  Under  the  last  king  of  the  third 
Dynasty,  numerous  inscriptions  were  cut  in  the  steep  wall  of  rock  in 

69 


6o  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  Wady-Magharah.  There  are  valuable  inscriptions  from  the  fourth 
Dynasty.  The  second  collection  of  "Proverbs"  in  the  Prisse  Papyrus  is 
believed  to  date  from  the  fifth  Dynasty.  One  of  the  princes  of  this 
Dynasty  is  described  on  a  tomb  in  Memphis  as  "the  royal  scribe  of  the 
palace,  the  Master  of  writing,  who  serves  as  a  light  to  all  the  writinig 
in  the  house  of  Pharaoh".  Brugsch  says  of  the  beautiful  tomb_  of  Thi 
erected  during  the  fifth  Dynasty,  that  "the  inscriptions  carved  in  hier- 
ogl>T)hics  and  filled  in  with  color,  give  a  clear  significance  to  the  pic- 
tures" and  indicate  great  progress  in  writing.  "In  the  documents  of 
these  early  Dynasties  the  writing  is  in  such  an  archaic  form  that  many 
of  the  scanty  fragments  which  we  possess  from  this  age  are  as  yet 
unintelligible  to  us.  Yet  it  was  the  medium  of  recording  medical  and 
religious  texts,  to  which  in  later  times  a  peculiar  sanctity  and  effective- 
ness were  attributed"  (Breasted,  Hist.  Egypt,  45).  One  of  these  is 
the  so-called  "Ebony- Tablet  of  Menes"  (3400  B.  C).  The  Berlin 
Museum  possesses  a  legal  document  pertaining  to  litigation  between  an 
heir  and  an  executor,  dating  from  the  Old  Empire.  It  is  the  oldest 
document  of  the  kind  in  existence  (Breasted,  op.  cit,  81).  Inscrip- 
tions found  at  Tanis,  El-Kab,  Memphis  show  that  under  the  Pharaohs 
of  the  sixth  Dynasty,  various  styles  of  writing  were  in  vogue. 

2.     THE  MIDDLE  EMPIRE.       (2160-I580  B.    C). 

The  seventh  and  eighth  Dynasties  yield  us  practically  no  records. 
The  period  of  confusion  during  Dynasties  7  to  ii  is  naturally  lacking 
in  literary  remains  of  a  high  order;  but  we  have  many  inscriptions. 
Among  these  is  an  elaborate  description  of  the  first  voyage  to  Ophir. 
In  the  period  of  the  powerful  monarchs  of  the  twelfth  Dynasty,  the 
Amenemhets  and  Usertesens,  art  and  literature  flourished.  This  is 
the  classic  period  in  which  the  system  of  writing  attains  a  consistent 
regularity,  and  every  department  of  literature  is  well  represented.  The 
first  Pharaoh  of  this  Dynasty  in  the  instructions  written  for  his  son 
(in  Salier  Papyrus  II)  speaks  of  the  troubles  consuming  the  land. 
The  classic  story  of  Sinuhe  dates  from  this  period.  A  document  on 
parchment  in  the  Berlin  Museum  renders  it  clear  that  Usertsen  I  was 
a  patron  of  literature,  of  which  the  great  obelisk  at  On,  cut  with  beau- 
tiful hieroglyphics  in  the  red  granite,  affords  a  proof.  The  long  in- 
scription of  Ameni,  the  latter  part  of  which  is  supposed  to  contain  an 
allusion  to  the  seven  years'  famine  in  Joseph's  time,  dates  from  this 
period.  An  inscription  in  the  Louvre  is  dated  in  the  ninth  year  of 
Usertsen  I.  The  inscriptions  from  this  period,  as  that  over  Khun- 
hotep's  rock-tomb  at  Beni-Hassan,  indicate  a  high  state  of  graphic 
and  literary  art. 

Positive  proof  exists  that  inscriptions  adorning  the  walls  of  the 
rock-chambers  of  tombs  belong  to  the  13th  Dynasty.  Many  papyri,  of 
this  period,  have  suvived,  as  the  "Story  of  the  Sekhti",  the  "Ship- 
wrecked Sailor"  and  "the  Westcar  Papyrus  of  Tales".  "A  system  of 
uniform  orthography,  hitherto  lacking,  was  now  developed  and  followed 
by  skilled  scribes  with  consistency.  A  series  of  model  letters  studied 
by  the  school-boys  of  the  20th  cent.  B.  C.  has  survived,  and  they  show 
with  what  pains  composition  was  studied.  The  language  of  this  age 
and  its  literary  products  were  in  later  times  regarded  as  classic,  and 
in  spite  of  its  excessive  artificialities,  the  judgment  of  modem  study 


ANTIQUITY    OF    BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN    LITERATURE.  6l 

confirms   that  of  the  Empire So  many  of  the  compositions 

of  the  Egyptian  scribe  are  couched  in  poetic  language  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  distinguish  between  poetry  and  prose Of  the  liter- 
ature of  the  age  we  may  say  that  it  now  displays  a  wealth  of  imagery 
and  a  fine  mastery  of  form  which  five  hundred  years  earlier,  at  the  close 
of  the  Old  Kingdom,  was  but  just  emerging.  The  content  of  the  sur- 
viving works  does  not  display  evidence  of  constructive  ability  in  the 
larger  sense  involving  both  form  and  content;  it  lacks  general  coher- 
ence" (Breasted,  Op.  cit.  pp.  203,  207,-8.).  Nearly  all  the  inscriptions 
contemporary  with  the  Hyksos  have  disappeared  from  Egyptian  soil, 
having  been  destroyed  by  the  native  kings. 

3.     THE    NEW    EMPIRE    (158O-94S    B,    C). 

Under  the  New  Empire,  beginning  with  Ahmose  I,  i8th  Dynasty, 
the  evidences  of  writing  and  literature  meet  us  on  all  sides.  It  is  im- 
possible to  enter  into  details.  Inscriptions  of  every  kind,  historical, 
poetical,  mythological,  mortuary,  abound.  One  of  the  most  interesting 
compositions  is  the  "Battle  of  Kadesh"  (formerly  called  the  "Poem  of 
Pentaur")  celebrating  the  victory  of  Rameses  I  over  the  Hittites.  The 
author's  perception  of  dramatic  action  is  remarkable.  "A  copy  of  this 
composition  on  papyrus  was  made  by  a  scribe  named  Pentewere  (Pen- 
taur), who  was  misunderstood  by  early  students  of  the  document  to  be 
the  author  of  the  poem"  (Breasted,  p.  453).  While  in  the  Middle 
Kingdom  folk-tales  with  a  historical  back-ground  had  sprung  up,  by  far 
the  better  class  of  this  kind  of  literature  dates  from  the  19th  Dynasty. 
The  story  of  the  conflict  between  the  Hyksos  king  Apophis  and  Sek- 
enere  relates  in  popular  form  the  expulsion  of  the  Hyksos.  Many  other 
productions  of  a  similar  character  are  extant. 

The  preceding  brief  account  will  suffice  to  show  that  for  three 
thousand  years  the  Egyptians  cultivated  writing  and  literature,  and 
that  the  climax  was  reached  in  the  Dynasty  preceding  the  Exodus. 
May  we  not  suppose  that  with  all  such  incentives  before  them,  the 
Hebrews  during  their  sojourn  in  Egypt  would  acquire  the  art  of  writ- 
ing and  a  taste  for  cultivating  literature? 

II. 

EXCURSUS  :     THE  ANTIQUITY   OF  BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN 
LITERATURE.^ 

As  we  are  concerned  here  in  determining  to  what  extent  writing 
was  current  in  Bible  lands  at  a  date  sufficiently  early  to  warrant  the 
inference  that  Hebrew  literature  flourished  in  early  times,  we  deal 
primarily  with  the  periods  contemporary  with  or  antedating  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Hebrews  on  the  stage  of  history. 

A.     ASSYRIAN    LITERATURE. 

The  Assyrians  were  a  military  rather  than  a  literary  people  and 
sustained  a  relation  to  the  Babylonians  similar  to  that  of  the  Romans 

1  In  addition  to  the  sources  themselves  and  the  usual  authorities,  we  make 
liberal  use  of  Weber's  "Literatur  der  Babylonier  und  Assyrer,"  Leipzig,    1907. 


62  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

to  the  Greeks;  they  appreciated,  copied  and  imitated  the  literature  of 
their  predecessors.  Thus  it  happens  that  from  about  iioo  to  600  B.  C, 
we  have  an  immense  body  of  Babylonian-Assyrian  literature,  partly 
original  works  of  native  writers  and  partly  copies  of  Babylonian  litera- 
ture. Indeed  not  a  little  of  the  Babylonian  literature  has  been  trans- 
mitted to  us  by  the  Assyrians.  The  language  of  these  two  people  was 
essentially  the  same.  This  literature  consists  of  prose  and  poetry. 
"The  former  class  consists  of  royal  inscriptions  (relating  to  military 
and  religious  aflfairs)  chronological  tables,  legal  documents,  grammati- 
cal tables,  lists  of  omens,  and  lucky  and  unlucky  days,  and  letters 
and  reports  passing  between  kings  and  governors;  the  latter  class 
includes  cosmogonic  poems,  an  epic  poem  in  tv,  elve  lines,  magic  for- 
mulas, and  incantations,  and  prayers  to  deities.  The  prose  pieces,  with 
scarcely  an  exception,  belong  to  the  historical  period,  and  may  be  dated 
with  something  like  accuracy.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  a  part  of  the 
poetical  material,  particularly  the  prayers;  but  the  cosmogonic  and 
other  mythical  poems  appear  to  go  back,  at  least,  so  far  as  their  material 
is  concerned,  to  a  very  remote  antiquity,  and  it  is  difficult  to  assign 
them  a  definite  date"  (C.  H.  Toy,  Lib.  World's  Best  Literature). 

We  record  here  merely  the  most  important  of  the  historical 
inscriptions:  as,  the  Prism  Inscription  of  Tiglathpileser  I,  1120-1100 
B.  C. ;  the  Standard  Inscription  and  the  Broken  Obelisk  of  Ashumaz- 
irpal  III,  885-60;  the  Black  Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  II,  860-25;  the 
Slab  Inscription  of  Adadnirarri  III,  812;  the  Cylinder  Inscription  of 
Sargon,  722-05 ;  the  Taylor  Cylinder  of  Sennacherib,  705 ;  and  the 
Six  Sided  Prism  of  Esarhaddon,  681 ;    and  many  others. 

From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  throughout  their  whole  history  the 
Assyrians  were  thoroughly  conversant  with  writing,  and  the  scribe  was 
a  well-known  character.     How  was  it  in  the  earlier  period? 

B.     BABYLONIAN    LITERATURE. 

I.  Immense  Extent. 

The  ancient  Bab.  literature  covers  a  period  of  3000  years  and  all 
departments  of  thought.  By  literature  is  here  meant,  compositions 
not  handed  down  orally,  but  permanently  preserved  in  writing.  The 
Babylonians  and  Assyrians  were  the  best  record-keepers  of  the  ancient 
world,  writing  down  accurately  the  most  important  events.  Explora- 
tions in  recent  years  have  proved  beyond  cavil  that  a  very  old,  if  not 
the  oldest  civilization  in  the  world,  had  its  seat  in  Southern  and  Central 
Babylonia.  As  early  as  4000-3000  B.  C,  painting,  engraving  and  writ- 
ing were  carried  to  a  high  degree  of  perfection.  The  written  material 
from  ancient  Babylonia  consists  of  a  vast  store  of  tablets,  "which 
now  number  certainly  not  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty  thousand 
in  the  various  museums  of  the  world.^  These  tablets  contain  a  liter- 
ature as  varied  in  form  and  content  as  it  is  vast  in  extent.  In  the  end 
all  of  this  literature  may  be  considered  as  sources  for  history.  Every 
business  tablet  is  dated,  and  from  these  dates  much  may  be  learned 
for  chronology,  while  even  in  the  tablets  themselves  there  is  mat- 
ter relating  to  the  daily  life  of  the  people Even  little  statu- 
ettes and    vases  bear  the   royal  mark,    while  the    bricks    used  in    the 

'  "I  would  say,  there  are  fully  1,000,000  tablets  in  Museums  and  in  the  hands 
of  private  persons"    (A.   T.   Clay,   in  private   letter). 


ANTIQUITY    OF    BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN    LITERATURE.  63 

erection  of  large  buiMings  were  stamped  with  the  king's  name  and  the 
name  of  the  land  over  which  he  ruled"  (Roger's,  Hist.  Bab.  and  Ass.). 

2.   Poetical  Literature. 

We  have  a  large  body  of  texts  which  establish  the  claim  that  the 
Babylonians  cultivated  literature  in  the  form  of  both  prose  and  poetry. 
The  poetry,  though  largely  secular,  has  an  underlying  religious  tone, 
as  seen  in  the  numerous  hymns  to  the  gods  and  in  the  penitential 
psalms.  As  to  form  the  elements  of  meter  were  observed,  the  verse 
being  divided  into  two  nearly  equal  parts.  As  to  content,  the  most 
important  are  the  so-called  epic  poems,  which  have  come  down  to  us 
in  a  comparatively  pure  form.  Thus  (i)  The  Creation  Epic  covers  in 
a  general  way  the  same  ground  as  Genesis  I,  but  from  a  grossly  poly- 
theistic stand-point.  In  its  present  form  it  is  of  rather  late  date,  not 
before  the  seventh  cent.  B.  C,  and  reflects  the  ideas  of  that  period. 
The  original  work  is  of  much  earlier  date,  as  shown  by  the  language. 
This  is  the  poem  which  some  of  the  most  radical  O.  T.  critics  regard 
as  the  source  of  Gen.  i,  but  the  spirit,  content  and  conception  of  the 
O.  T  narrative  are  so  far  superior  that  comparison  is  out  of  the  question. 
(2).  The  Gilgamesch  Epic,  is  a  magnificent  poem  of  12  tablets,  whose 
hero  Gilgamesch  becomes  king  of  Erech,  where  he  holds  sovereign 
sway,  until  the  gods  create  Engidu  to  destroy  him.  But  Ishtar, 
the  goddess  of  love,  appears  on  the  scene,  and  after  a  series  of  mar- 
vellous exploits  described  in  a  vivid  style,  the  hero  comes  off  victor. 
Attempts  have  been  made,  but  unsuccessfully,  to  connect  the  hero  with 
the  Biblical  Nimrod.  (3).  The  Story  of  the  Deluge,  found  in  the  nth 
tablet  of  the  preceding  Epic,  is  the  Bab.  account  of  the  Flo9d  and  con- 
tains some  points  of  similarity,  but  many  more  of  dissimilarity,  with 
the  Biblical  account.  Driver,  though  claiming  that  "the  resem.blances 
with  the  Biblical  narrative  are  too  numerous  and  too  marked  to  be  due 
to  accident",  allows  that  the  Genesis  account  "has  a  new  character 
stamped  upon  it ;  and  it  becomes  a  symbolical  embodiment  of  ethical 
and  religious  truth.  It  marks  an  epoch  in  the  religious  history  of 
mankind"  (Genesis,  p.,  107).  Other  poems  are  the  Etana-Legend,  the 
Legend  of  the  god  Zu  and  that  of  the  god  Urra,  of  very  early  date. 
Some  interest  attaches  to  a  poem  recounting  the  invasion  of  Babylonia 
by  Kudur-Dugumal,  regarded  by  some  as  the  Chedorlaomer  of  Gen. 
XIV. 

3.   Prose  Literature. 

(i).  Historical  Literature.  The  best  examples  of  Bab.  and  Ass. 
literature  are  the  longer  historical  inscriptions  of  the  later  periods. 
The  earlier  inscriptions,  though  shorter,  testify  to  the  wonderful 
skill  and  activity  in  the  art  of  writing.  There  are  a  few  inscriptions 
of  unusual  length;  among  them  two  prayers  of  Gudea,  each  having 
about  2000  lines.  We  must  conclude  that  writing  was  well  known 
long  before  3000  B.  C.  In  his  excavations  at  Tello,  de  Sarzec  discov- 
ered thousands  of  clay  tablets  of  a  date  varying  from  2500  to  3200  B.  C. 
"With  regard  to  their  age,  these  tablets  cover  a  considerable  period. 
Some  of  them'  antedate  the  Dynasty  of  Ur-Nina  (4000  B.  C.)  ;  others 
bear  the  name  of  Urukagina,  king  of  Shirpurla,  whose  time  has  not 
been  fixed  definitely;    again  others  belong  to  the  age  of  Sargon  I  and 


64  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Naram-Sin  and  are  of  inestimable  value  for  their  dates ;  a  few  are  the 
documents  from  the  reign  of  Gudea  (2700)  ;  by  far  the  largest  mass  of 
the  tablets  removed  belongs  to  the  powerful  members  of  the  later 
Dynasty  of  Ur  about  2500  B.  C."  (Hilprecht,  Excavations  in  Bible 
Lands,  249).  A  few  of  the  bricks  found  in  the  pavement  of  the  temple 
at  Nippur  contain  inscriptions  of  Sargon  I,  the  reputed  builder,  and  of 
Naram-Sin.^ 

Another  city  attaining  a  high  civilization  was  Ur,  whence  Abraham 
migrated  (Gen.  11:  28,  31,).  "Even  before  the  Days  of  Sargon  the 
city  of  Ur  had  an  existence  and  government  of  its  own"  (Roger's, 
Hist.  I,  372).  About  a  thousand  years  later  Ur  again  became  the  cen- 
ter of  great  literary  activity.  All  sources  of  information  testify  that 
"Ur  of  the  Chasdim"  in  the  time  of  Abraham  was  a  great  political  and 
literary  metropolis   in  which  literature  was  extensively  cultivated. 

Ur-Gur,  a  builder  of  temples,  has  left  us  a  considerable  number 
of  inscriptions  at  Mugheir,  Erech,  Larsa,  and  Nippur.  The  Erech  of 
Gen.  10:  10  was  one  of  the  sacred  cities  of  Babylonia  and  enjoyed 
great  prestige  as  a  shrine  of  the  goddess  Ishtar.  Inscriptions  of  Dungi 
have  been  found  at  Ur,  Erech,  Cutha,  etc.  For  a  number  of  centuries 
to  the  rise  of  Babylon,  the  inscriptions  vary  in  character,  but  furnish 
undoubted  evidence  of  literary  activity  and  the  general  cultivation  of 
writing.  A  new  era  began  with  Hammurabi,  who  according  to  the 
ancient  sources,  was  a  strong  and  energetic  personality  with  the  ability 
to  originate  and  execute  far-reaching  plans.  His  life  and  works  are 
fully  described  in  some  fifty  letters  written  by  himself  and  in  the  Chron- 
ology of  the  Kings.  The  excavator's  spade  has  uncovered  many  liter- 
ary treasures  of  his  time.  As  many  of  these  are  dated  there  can  be 
little  doubt  as  to  their  origin. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  Cassite  rule,  Babylon  began  to  decline, 
and  other  peoples,  as  the  Egyptians,  Hittites,  Amorites,  and  Assyrians 
appeared  upon  the  stage  of  Asiatic  history.  The  Babylonian  language 
and  the  cuneiform  script  were  the  chief  vehicles  of  literary  expression, 
and  while  in  the  interval  between  Hammurabi  (2000 — 1950  B.  C.)  and 
the  Amarna  period  (1400)  the  strictly  historical  material  is  scanty, 
abundant  evidence  exists  that  literature  was  cultivated. 

(^).  Legal  Literature.  Already  at  an  early  date,  the  Babylonians 
developed  what  may  be  called  legal  literature  in  the  broad  sense,  in- 
cluding laws,  contracts,  and  deeds.  The  extensive  business  relations 
led  to  a  great  variety  of  legal  documents,  as  pledges,  wills  and  testa- 
ments. "Legal  documents  constitute  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  the 
inscriptions  which  have  come  down  to  us  from  every  period  of  Bab. 

*  The  date  of  Sargon  I  is  computed  from  indirect  proof.  Nabonidus  the 
last  king  of  Babylon  states  that  while  restoring  a  ternple  of  the  sun-god,  he  came 
upon  the  foundation-stone  of  Naram-Sin,  the  son  of  Sargon,  which  had  been  hid- 
den 3200  years.  Since  the  date  of  Nabonidus  is  550  B.  C,  Naram-Sin,  on  this 
calculation,  ruled  in  3750  and  Sargon  in  3800.  The  accuracy  of  this  result  de- 
Dends  on  the  altogether  precarious  and  otherwise  unsupported  statement  of 
Nabonidus.  "The  chronological  systems  of  the  later  Ass.  and  Bab.  scribes,  which 
were  formerly  regarded  as  of  primary  importance,  have  been  brought  into  dis- 
credit by  the  scribes  themselves.  From  their  own  discrepancies  it  has  been  shown 
that  the  native  chronologists  could  make  mistakes  in  their  reckonings,  and  a  pos- 
sible source  of  error  has  been  disclosed  in  the  fact  that  some  of  the  early  dynas- 
ties, which  were  formerly  regarded  as  consecutive,  were  actually  contemporane- 
ous" (King,  Hist.  Sumer  and  Akkad).  The  date  of  Sargon  I  is  now  generally 
given  as  2650  B.  C.   (King), 


ANTIQUITY    OF    BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN    LITERATURE.  65 

and  Ass.  history.  In  the  library  of  Ashurbanipal  alone  they  are  ex- 
ceeded by  the  letters  and  even  more  by  the  works  dealing  with  astrol- 
ogy and  omens."  (Johns,  Bab.  and  Ass.  Laws,  Contracts  and  Letters, 
10).  The  range  of  subjects  includes  all  matters  needing  regulation  in 
a  highly  civilized  community.  That  which  concerns  us  especially  is 
the  date  of  this  kind  of  writing,  which  extends  from  the  earliest  period 
of  recorded  history  to  the  close  of  the  Bab.  kingdom,  i.  e.  from  4500 
to  500,  during  every  period  of  which  we  have  proof  of  literature  of 
this  character,  and  thus  of  our  thesis  that  writing  was  one  of  the 
necessary  accompaniments  of  Bab.  civilization. 

The  Hammurabi  Code.  The  discovery  in  1901  of  the  laws  of 
Hammurabi,  the  oldest  Codex  juris  in  the  world,  is  a  remarkable 
proof  that  as  early  as  2000  B.  C,  an  elaborate  legal  code  was  committed 
to  writing  and  perhaps  published  in  different  parts  of  the  empire.  As 
this  code  is  alleged  to  have  had  some  influence  on  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion we  describe  it  briefly.  It  covers  such  subjects  as  oaths,  theft,  land, 
tenure,  damages,  marriage,  adultery,  divorce,  inheritance,  adopted 
children,  the  jus  talionis  and  slavery,  and  in  some  respects  runs  parallel 
with  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  21:  1-23;  33).  Deducting  the 
missing  parts,  the  Code  has  248  paragraphs,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
100  verses ;  the  Code  is  five  times  longer,  but  each  has  a  large  amount 
of  matter  not  found  in  the  other.  The  following  are  some  of  the  chief 
parallels : 

Hammurabi  Code.  Mosaic   Covenant. 

If  a  son  strike  his  father,  they  He   that   smiteth   his   father  or 

shall  cut  off  his  fingers   (§  195).  mother    shall    be   surely    put    to 

death    (Ex.  21 :    15). 
If  a  man  steal  a  man's  son,  who         He    that    stealeth    a    man    and 
is  a   minor,    he   shall    be   put   to      selleth  him,  of  if  he  be  found  in 
death  (§14).  his   hand,  he   shall   surely  be  put 

to  death   (Ex.  21 :  16). 
If    a  man    strike   another    in    a  If  men  contend  and  one  smite 

quarrel  and  wound  him  he  shall  the  other  with  a  stone  or  with  his 
swear:  "I  struck  him  without  in-      fist,     and    he    die   not,     but   keep 

tent,"  and  he  shall  be  responsible      his  bed he  shall  pay  for 

for  the  physician    (§206).  the    loss    of    his    time    and    shall 

cause     him     to     be     thoroughly 

healed  (Ex.  21:  18,  19). 
If  a  man  destroy  the  eye  of  an-  If  any  harm  follow,  then  thou 
other  man  they  shall  destroy  his  shalt  give  life  for  life,  eye  for 
eye.  If  he  break  a  man's  bone,  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for 
they  shall  break  his  bone.  If  a  hand,  burning  for  burning,  wound 
man  knock  out  a  tooth  of  a  man  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe  (Ex. 
of  his  own  rank,  they  shall  knock  21:  23-25). 
out  his  tooth   (§§196,   197,  200). 

Three  views  have  been  entertained  regarding  these  and  other 
similarities.  The  first  is  that  little  or  no  influence  was  exerted  by  the 
Code  on  the  Covenant,  the  laws  being  such  as  would  be  found  in  the 
ancient  world  generally.  The  second  view  is  that  the  influence  is 
direct,    the  common   Babylonian  law   having   found   its   way   into  the 

5 


66  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Covenant.  According  to  the  third  theory  the  influence  was  indirect 
"The  Covenant  has  Babylonian  elements,  but  it  is  not  Babylonian  in 
spirit.  Like  the  accounts  of  the  Creation  and  the  Deluge  in  Genesis, 
the  old  material  is  incorporated  in  a  new  system  of  thought  and  moulded 
in  a  new  form.  The  difference  is  one  of  ethical  setting  and  purpose. 
The  moral  undertone  of  the  Covenant,  reverence  toward  God,  love_  to 
neighbor,  humane  treatment  of  animals  and  the  great  underlying 
thought  of  the  Decalog,  are  lacking  in  the  Code  Hammurabi."  * 

(s).  Epistolary  Literature.  The  origin  of  letter-writing  is  un- 
known. As  early  as  Sargon  I,  a  kind  of  postal  system  existed.  Pack- 
ages of  goods  were  forwarded,  and  with  them  small  blocks  of  clay 
containing  the  address  of  the  recipient.  The  greeting  "Peace"  (Shti- 
lumu,  Heb.  Shalom)  or  "Peace  to  thee"  is  very  common.  We  have 
letters  from  all  periods  of  Babylonian  history.  For  a  thousand  years 
prior  to  the  Exodus  letters  had  passed  to  and  fro  between  Babylon 
and  the  Mediterranean.  The  letters  of  Hammurabi  constitute  per- 
haps the  most  valuable  of  the  earlier  series.  These  letters,  some  fifty 
of  which  are  addressed  to  one  and  the  same  man,  relate  chiefly  to 
administrative  affairs,  as  the  collecting  of  taxes,  recovery  of  stolen 
goods,  the  punishment  for  bribery,  etc.  Since  all  the  letters  of  Ham- 
murabi seem  to  be  in  the  same  hand,  it  is  inferred  that  they  were 
written  by  one  scribe.  Some  peculiar  expressions,  however,  indicate 
that  the  king  sometimes  wrote  with  his  own  hand.  But  generally  offi- 
cial documents  were  executed  by  professional  scribes.  Since  some  of 
the  letters  are  addressed  to  agents,  overseers,  and  tax-collectors,  it 
may  be  inferred  that  in  the  third  millennium  B.  C.  the  middle-class 
Babylonian  could  write  in  the  complicated  cuneiform  script. 

(4).  Religious  Literature.  In  a  certain  sense  the  religious  element 
is  present  in  much  of  Babylonian  literature.  Even  a  business  com- 
pact, being  bound  by  an  oath,  partook  of  a  religious  character.  But 
apart  from  this,  there  existed  several  kinds  of  special  religious  litera- 
ture, as  the  magical  texts,  the  hymns  and  prayers,  omens  and  fore- 
casts, the  cosmology  and  legends.  Of  these  it  may  be  said  in  general 
that  though  we  possess  them  mostly  in  copies  of  the  Assyrian  period, 
they  go  back  to  a  much  earlier  time.  Some  of  the  magical  texts  come 
down  to  us  from  the  age  of  Hammurabi. 

(5).  Anonymity  of  Babylonian- Assyrian  Literature.  A  remarka- 
ble peculiarity  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  literature  is  its  wholly  im- 
personal and  anonymous  character,  due  to  the  dominant  desire  to  repro- 
duce traditional  forms  and  models.  There  is  little  originality  of  style, 
because  none  is  aimed  at.  "H  we  leave  out  of  account  the  additions  and 
interpolations  (which  in  no  way  affect  the  literary  character)  we  are 
unable  to  determine  in  most  cases  whether  a  text  dates  from  the 
twentieth  or  the  seventh  century  B.  C."  (Weber,  op.  cit,  p.,  2).  Weber 
regards  this  anonyrnity  and  woodenness  of  Babylonian  literature  as  a 
serious  defect.  This  tendency  to  old  and  stereot>T)ed  methods  in 
Babylonian  writing  may  be  the  reason  why  in  the  Amarna  Letters,  the 
cuneiform  rather  than  the  Phoenician  script  was  employed  (assuming, 
of  course,  that  the  latter  was  then  in  existence).     Weber  continues: 

*  Condensed   from  the  author's  article  on  "The  Code  of  Hammurabi  and  the 
Mosaic  Book  of  the  Covenant"  in  The  Reformed  Church  Review,  Jan.  and  Apr 
1905. 


LITERATURE  IN   CANAAN   IN  THE   PRE-MOSAIC  PERIOD.         6/ 

"Das  ist  nur  verstaendlich  wenn  man  bedenkt,  dass  der  offiziellen  Spra- 
che  der  Nimbus  der  Heiligkeit  anhaftete,  dass  ausschliesslich  die  Prie- 
sterkaste  der  Schrift  kundig  war,  dass  die  konservierende  Macht  der 
priesterlichen  Tradition  auch  der  Fortpflanzung  der  Schriftssprache 
diente"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  21). 

For  Tell  el  Amarna  Letters,  see  next  section. 

III. 

CIVILIZATION    AND    LITERATURE    IN    CANAAN    IN    THE 
PRE-MOSAIC    PERIOD. 

The  recent  recovery  of  a  remarkable  body  of  Palestinian 
literature  lias  necessitated  a  radical  modification  of  traditional 
views  regarding  the  civilization  of  Palestine  at  the  date  of  the 
Exodus. 

A.   THE   TELL  EL   AMARNA      TABLETS. 

In  1888  there  were  found  near  the  modern  village  of  Tell 
el  Amarna  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Nile  some  320  clay  tablets 
Vv^ritten  in  the  Babylonian  language  and  the  cuneiform  script. 
These  records,  which  have  been  carefully  edited  and  translated, 
have  necessitated  an  almost  entire  reconstruction  of  the  history 
of  Palestine  in  the  fifteenth  century  B.  C.  Since  Palestine 
was  at  that  time  an  Egyptian  province,  we  should  expect  to 
find  the  Egyptian  language  employed  as  the  medium  of  com- 
munication. The  constant  and  exclusive  use  of  the  Babylonian 
in  these  letters  (excepting  some  native  words)  implies  that  tlie 
old  conquerors  had  so  thoroughly  impressed  their  language  and 
culture  on  the  people  that  even  in  writing  to  the  Egyptian  court 
the  cuneiform  was  preferred. 

This  collection  includes  letters  from  the  officials  of  many 
towns  in  Palestine,  as  Gaza,  Byblos,  Accho,  Hazor,  Ashkelon, 
Joppa,  Lachish  and  Jerusalem.^  The  subject  of  the  letters  is 
generally  the  need  of  succor  against  an  enemy.  The  names 
of  the  officials  are  generally  Canaanite  (Hebrew),  a  proof  that 
both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Babylonian  language  were  understood 
by  the  writers.  How  are  we  to  explain  this  employment  of 
the  Babylonian  ?     "The  only  explanation  of  the  actual  phenom- 

■  About  two-thirds  of  these  found  their  way  to  the  British  Museum  and  the 
Royal  Museum  in  Berlin;  the  rest  are  in  the  Museum  at  Balak  in  Egypt.  The 
fact  that  letters  in  the  Babylonian  should  be  found  in  Egypt  was  a  great  sur- 
prise, which  was  increased  when  it  was  discovered  that  they  were  written  about 
1400  by  rulers  in  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Syria  and  Palestine  to  Amenophis  III  and 
his  successor  Amenophis  IV.  The  subjects  of  the  letters  between  the  Babylonian 
and  Egyptian  monarchs  are  treaties,  business  relations  and  marriage  compacts. 
They  furnish  valuable  historical  data  and  throw  an  interesting  side-light  on  the 
customs,  trade  and  politics  of  that  day. 


68  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

enon  is  that  the  Babylonians  had  once,  and  up  to  a  comparative- 
ly recent  period,  occupied  the  whole  of  the  habitable  territor}^ 
as  far  as  the  Mediterranean  and  the  River  of  Egypt ;  that  the 
period  of  their  occupation  was  very  long  and  scarcely  intermit- 
tent; that  their  influence  extended  to  the  minutest  details  of 
business  and  social  life ;  and  that  their  language  and  literature 
fonned  a  liberal  education  for  all  the  cultivated  classes  in  Wes- 
tern Asia"  (McCurdy,  Hist.  Proph.  and  Mon.,  I,  185). 

These  letters  show  that  Palestine  was  at  this  time  a  land 
of  high  civilization.  All  the  arts  were  well  advanced,  especially 
writing.  'The  most  suggestive  fact  of  all  is  the  prevalence 
....  of  one  system  of  writing,  and  that  not  only  for  the 
Babylonian  language,  but  for  the  native  languages  as  well" 
(McCurdy,  op.  cit.).  The  view  generally  entertained  is  that 
the  culture  and  religion  of  Canaan  in  2500-1400  B.  C.  was 
Babylonian  both  in  origin  and  development;  but  lately  the 
theory  has  gained  ground  that  there  was  an  extensive  native 
literature  and  culture.     See  further  below  on  Amorites. 

B.     THE    HISTORIC    SITUATION    IN    PALESTINE    IN    25OO — I4OO,    B.    C. 

7.    Early  Egyptian  Influence. 

The  earliest  sources  of  information  regarding  Palestine 
are  the  Egyptian  monuments.  ''Both  the  Palermo  Stone  and 
the  inscriptions  of  the  Wadi  Maghara  in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai 
bear  witness  that  already  in  the  First  Dynasty,  beginning  ca. 
3400  B.  C,  the  Egyptians,  who  were  exploiting  the  copper 
mines  in  Sanai,  came  in  contact  with  tribes  of  Beduin,  while 
as  early  as  the  Third  Dynasty  (2980-2900)  the  Egyptians  im- 
ported cedar  wood  from  the  Lebanons,  and  Sahure  of  the  Ffth 
Dynasty  brought  back  Phoenician  captives,  whose  pictures,  on 
a  relief  from  his  pyramid-temple  at  Abusir,  are  the  oldest 
pictures  of  Semitic  Svrians  which  have  come  down  to  us"  (D. 
D.  Luckenbill,  Bib.  World,  XXXV,  p.,  26).  Somewhat  later 
Pepi  I  (2590-70)  invaded  Palestine  and  the  inscription  on  the 
tomb  of  his  general  Uni  declares  that  "His  Majesty  made  war 
with  the  Amu  (Asiatics)  and  the  Harusha  (beduin,  sand-dwel- 
lers)" and  destroyed  their  strongholds.  It  is  clear  that  in  this 
early  period,  Egypt  was  in  touch  with  Midian,  Sinai,  Palestine 
and  Syria." 


•  According   to   Mueller    (Asien   u.   Eitropa    123),    the    term  Amu    is    Egyptian, 

meaning      boomerang-thrower,      and    gradually   came   to    denote  Beduin,    Arabians 

Palestinians;    •*  •'•  "- — •-'■-^  ...-.^v.   tt ,  _    ^<-       ,,         ,        ,  .   .      ..>                    » 

to 


_.....»  — ^^...^.^wj,  ,....^.,,^j,  aiiw  Kiauuaiiv  Lduic  lo  uenoie  rieauin,  Arabians, 
lestinians;  It  is  ass9ciated  with  Harusha  (Sandbewohner)  sand-dwellers,  applied 
the  nomads  of  Syria.  ^^ 


LITERATURE  IN   CANAAN   IN  THE   PRE-MOSAIC  PERIOD.         69 

2.  Semites  in  Palestine. 

On  the  other  hand  according-  to  the  cuneiform  inscriptions, 
the  Semites  exerted  a  powerful  influence  in  Syria  and  Palestine 
already  in  3000  B.  C.  One  of  the  early  kings  of  Babylon, 
Lugalzagisi,  has  left  an  inscription  recording  his  claim  to  the 
territory  from  ''the  Lower  Sea  to  the  Upper  Sea",  that  is  from 
the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  Mediterranean.  Some  years  later  Sar- 
gon  I  extended  his  power  to  Martu  the  land  of  the  Amorites ; 
his  successors  made  a  like  claim.  "With  the  fall  of  the  second 
dynasty  of  Ur  this  supremacy  came  to  an  end.  For  300  years 
Habylonia  was  wasted  by  foreign  invasion  and  internal  strife" 
(Paton,  Syria  and  Pal,  23).  About  the  middle  of  the  third 
millennium,  a  great  migration  of  races  started  from  Arabia  and 
Babylonia  and  poured  Westward.'^  That  Canaan  was  affected 
by  this  Semitic  or  more  correctly  Amorite  migration,  is  shown 
by  early  names,  contract  tablets  and  scattered  inscriptions.  'The 
name  which  is  most  appropriate  for  this  migration  is  Amoritic" 
(Paton). 

From  this  time  on  the  Amorites  played  an  important  role 
in  the  West-Land.  According  to  Sayce,  "in  early  days,  long 
before  the  age  of  Abraham,  the  Amorites  must  have  been  the 

predominant  population  in  this  part  of  Syria From 

the  time  of  Sargon,  Amurru  was  the  name  under  which  Syria 
and  more  particularly  Canaan,  was  known  to  the  Babylonians" 
(Patri.  Pal.).  Referring  to  early  Palestinian  civiHzation,  Sayce 
says:  "It  was  not  to  a  strange  and  unexplored  region  that 
Abraham  migrated.  The  laws,  the  manners,  to  which  he  had 
been  accustomed,  the  writing  and  literature  which  he  had 
learned  in  the  schools  of  Ur,  he  found  again  in  Canaan.  The 
land  of  his  adoption  was  full  of  Babylonian  traders,  soldiers 
and  probably  officials,  and  from  time  to  time  he  must  have  heard 
around  him  the  language  of  his  birth-place"  (op.  cit.  169). 

About  2000  B.  C.  the  great  Hammurabi  became  supreme 
ruler  in  the  East  and  is  supposed  to  have  gained  control  over 
Canaan,  claiming  the  title  ''King  of  Martu".  Contrary  to  the 
view  generally  held,  the  monumentsi  relating  to  the  centuries 
immediately    following   do   not    indicate   absolute   Babylonian 


'  The  names  of  some  of  the  kings  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon,  have  as 
one  of  their  component  parts  the  terms  "abi'\  "my  father",  or  "Atnmi",  "my 
paternal  uncle",  words  indicative  of  the  Canaanite-Semitic  group  of  languages 
(Hebrew,  Phoenician,  Moabite).  According  to  Winckler,  a  number  of  letters 
of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon  abound  in  Canaanite  words  and  idioms,  and 
reveal  a  linguistic,  if  not  a  race,  connection  between  these  remote  regions. 


70  ANTIQUITY   OF    HEBREW    LITERATURE. 

supremacy  in  Palestine  and  Syria,  even  though  the  Bab3'lonian 
langTiage  and  script  were  employed  in  the  West.  The  distance 
was  too  great  to  admit  of  more  than  a  nominal  lordship.  A  con- 
siderable part  of  the  Palestinian  culture  of  this  period  is  now 
known  to  have  been  a  native  product.^  'The  excavations  con- 
ducted in  Palestine  do  not  show  any  Babylonian  influence  in  the 
early  period  of  Israelitish  history,  nor  in  the  pre-Israelitish" 
(Clay,  Amurru,  26).  In  the  so-called  Assyrian  period,  eighth 
century,  it  may  be  allowed  that  Assyria  influenced  Israel.  Such  is 
the  view  of  Nowack  (in  his  review  of  the  discoveries  at  Tell 
el-Mutesselim)  ;  "It  is  a  disturbing  but  irrefutable  fact  that 
down  to  the  fifth  stratum — i.  e.,  to  the  beginning  of  the  eighth 
century — important  Assyrian  influences  do  not  assert  them- 
selves  It  is  most  significant  that  in  Megiddo  not 

a  single  idol  from  the  Assyrian-Babylonian  Pantheon  has  been 
found"  (Theolog.  Literature.,  1908,  26).  "Contrary  to  the 
views  of  most  Semitists  ....  that  the  people  of  Palestine 
2000  B.  C.  were  in  a  state  of  barbarism,  Prof.  W.  Mueller  main- 
tains that  in  the  districts  of  arable  land  the  people^  were  agri- 
cultural, and  had  attained  a  fair  degree  of  civilization"  (Clay, 
op.  cit.,  29).  It  is  now  generally  admitted,  even  by  some  Pan- 
babylonists  that  the  Amurri,  Canaanites  and  Phoenicians  entered 
the  West-Land  at  an  early  date  and  founded  a  high  civiHza- 
tion.® 

3.  Cassite,  Canaanite  and  Mitannian  Inroads. 

Whatever  the  influence  of  Babylon  on  Palestine  and  Syria 
in  early  times,  it  ceased  in  the  eighteenth  century  when  the 
Cassites,  C'anaanites  and  Mitannians  broke  the  power  of  Baby- 
lonia. "Babylon  was  cut  oflf  from  her  ancient  trade  with  the 
West;  and,  with  the  loss  of  her  commercial  prosperity,  sank 
to  the  position  of  a  second-class  power.  Syria,  Palestine  and 
Mesopotamia,  which  she  had  dominated  for  two  thousand  years, 
passed  out  of  her  grasp,  never  to  return  again,  except  for  a 

•  The  fact  that  Babylonian  was  used  in  Palestine  and  among  the  Hittite 
peoples  clearly  does  not  allow  sweeping  inferences.  Indeed  so  far  from  the 
script  or  language  having  been  imposed  from  without,  the  people  of  Mitanni 
apparently  borrowed  the  cuneiform  script  and  adapted  it  to  their  language;  while 
in  the  Amarna  Tablets,  the  native  tongue  of  Palestine  and  Syria  has  left  a  dis- 
tinct  impress    upon    the    Babylonian The    archaeological    evidence    shows 

very  clearly  that  Palestine  was  not  absorbed  by  Babylonian  culture,  still  less  by 
that  of  Egypt"  (Cooke,  Relig.  An.  Pal.,  112). 

'  "The  ability  to  master  this  complicated  and  difficult  system  of  writing  (i.  e. 
the  cuneiform),  speaks  volumes  for  the  intelligence  of  the  civilized  peoples  of 
Western  Asia.  Education  of  scribes  must  have  been  widely  spread;  for  the 
learned  knew  how  to  write  this  cumbersome  ideographic  and  phonetic  script  of 
the  Babylonians"   (Clay,  p.,   32). 


LITERATURE  IN   CANAAN   IN  THE  PRE-MOSAIC  PERIOD.         7I 

brief  period  a  thousand  years  later  under  the  rule  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar IF'  (Paton,  op.  cit.,  p.,  65).  Meanwhile  the  West-land 
trade,  hitherto  by  way  of  Harran,  was  diverted  to  Southern 
Arabia,  where  there  flourished  the  influential  Minsean  kingdom 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C. 

Some  centuries  previously  the  Hyksos,  a  Semitic  people,  in 
their  conquering  march  to  Egypt,  must  have  subdued  Palestine, 
to  which  they  returned  after  their  expulsion  from  Egypt. 
About  the  same  time  there  occurred  the  Canaanite  and  Phoe- 
nician Migration.  The  relation  of  these  people  to  the  Amorites 
is  not  exactly  determined,  but  it  is  probable  that  *'the  Hyksos- 
Canaanites  are  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  later  waves  of  the 
Amorite  invasion  rather  than  as  an  independent  migration, 
such  as  the  Babylonian,  the  Aramaean,  or  the  Arabian,  all  of 
which  are  distinguished  by  marked  linguistic  peculiarities.  .  . 
The  common  opinion  that  the  Hyksos  were  barbarians  rests 
upon  no  good  evidence.  On  the  contrary  their  kings  patron- 
ized art  and  literature Neither  in  Egypt  nor  in  Pal- 
estine is  there  any  sign  of  an  overturning  of  civilization"  ( Pa- 
ton,  p.,  70).  "The  expelled  Hyksos  joined  forces  with  their 
kinsmen  who  had  already  occupied  the  cities  of  Palestine  and 
of  the  Syrian  coast;  and,  mingling  with  the  older  strata  of 
population,  formed  the  race  that  the  Old  Testament  designates 
as  Canaanites". 

4.  Egyptian  Supremacy. 

After  a  reign  of  some  200  years  (1788- 1580)  the  Hyksos 
were  expelled  from  Egypt,  and  the  native  kings  of  the  power- 
ful eighteenth  Dynasty  followed  up  their  victory  by  reducing 
Palestine  and  Syria  to  tributary  provinces.  For  a  period  of 
some  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  the  Pharaohs  (1553-1392) 
were  supreme  in  Palestine.  The  point  that  concerns  us  here 
is  that  during  this  whole  period,  the  Babylonian  language  and 
script  and  not  the  Egyptian  was  the  medium  of  communication 
between  the  Pharaohs  and  the  subject  provinces.  This  strange 
fact  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  theory  that  the  Babylon- 
ian language  and  culture  (so-called)  had  become  practically 
indigenous  long  prior  to  the  Egyptian  supremacy. 

C.     A    NATIVE    PALESTINIAN    LITERATURE    FROM    EARLY    TIMES. 

The  preceding  survey  shows  successive  Semitic  migrations 
into  the  Westland,  i.  e.  Palestine,  the  first  as  early  as  3,cxx) 
B.  C. ;    then  again  in  the  Sargonic  and  Hammurabi  periods. 


*J2  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

The  Cassite  invasion  broke  the  power  of  Babylon  in  the  West  ;^® 
and  the  Egyptians  were  supreme  in  Palestine  from  the  seven- 
teenth to  the  fourteenth  century.  It  would  seem,  therefore, 
that  previous  to  the  Cassite  period,  the  Babylonian  language 
had  gained  a  firm  foothold  in  Canaan  and  was  employed  at 
least  in  international  correspondence,  and  probably  in  ordinary 
hfe  until  the  close  of  the  Amarna  period.  Nothing  hinders 
our  holding  that  the  people  of  Palestine,  or  at  least  the  higher 
classes,  in  1900- 1600  (when  the  power  of  Babylon  in  Palestine 
was  practically  nil)  still  retained  a  knowledge  of  the  Babylonian 
language  and  script.  This  is  confirmed  by  recent  excavations 
in  Palestine.^^  Sellin  has  shown  that  an  original  Canaanite 
culture  and  literature  existed  between  2500-1500  sharply  distin- 
guished from  the  Babylonian.  He  unearthed  in  Taanach  a 
seal-cylinder  of  a  Canaanite  living  in  2000  B.  C.  with  the  cune- 
iform legend :  ''Atanachili,  son  of  Chabsi,  servant  of  Nergal".^^ 
Sellin  holds  that  the  Babylonian  language  and  script  were  per- 
petuated in  Canaan  by  scribes,  foreign  and  native,  and  in 
"writing-exercises  in  religious  and  legal  documents".  The  con- 
stant needs  of  a  civilized  people  like  the  Amorites,  would  ne- 
cessitate a  retention  of  the  cuneiform  script  (the  only  interna- 
tional script  of  that  day)  centuries  ^fter  the  cessation  of  direct 
Babylonian  influence  in  the  West.^^ 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  cuneiform  script  was  un- 
known in  Palestine  between,  say,  1900  and  1500,  and  that  it 
was  mediated  to  the  Canaanites  just  before  the  Amarna  period 
by  the  Hittites  who  had  themselves  acquired  it  from;  the  Mitan- 

"  Winckler:  "Unter  den  Kassiten  beginnt  der  Rueckgang  der  babylonischen 
Machtstellung  '   (Keilins.  A.   T.   p.,   21). 

"  See:  Petrie:  Tell  el  Hesy;  Bliss,  A  Mound  of  Many  Cities;  Bliss  and 
Dickie,  Excavations  at  Jerusalem;  Macalister,  Bible  Side-Lights  from  the  Mound 
of  Gezer;  Bliss  and  Macalister,  Excavations  in  Palestine;  Sayce,  Archaeology  of 
the  Cuneiform  Inscriptions;  Driver,  Modern  Research  as  Illustrating  the  Bible; 
Steuernagel,  Tell  el-Mutcsselim;  Vincent,  Canaan  d'  apres  I'  exploration  recente ; 
Sellin,  Tell  Ta'annck  and  Nachlese;  Ertrag  d.  Ausgrabungen  im  Orient;  also 
vols,  of  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  and  Mitt.  u.  Nachr.  d.  Deut.  Palaes.   Vereins. 

T  i,'*,^T^^^'  ,Y'*^  ^  Babylonian  inscription  no  longer  decipherable  was  found  in 
I  ell  el-Muteselhm;  and  Bliss  discovered  in  Tell  es  Safi  the  tragments  of  a  stele 
with  cuneiform  writing,  as  also  seals  and  cylinders.  Sellin  writes:  "Wenn  wir 
nun  also  die  Frage  aufwerfen:  welche  Voelker  haben  in  der  kananitischen  Perio- 
de  d.  1.  etwa  von  2500-1200  v.  Chr.  auf  Palaestina  kulturell  eingewirkt,  so  ist 
darauf  folgendes  zu  antworten:  Es  hat  eine  originell  kananitische  Kultur  gege- 
ben,  erkennbar  vor  allem  an  den  Erzeugnissen  der  Keramik,  den  schraffierten 
bcherben,  den  eigenartig  gewolbten  Handgriffen  und  den  hineingeritzten,  immer 
wiederkehrenden  Dekorationen  der  Kriige.  Von  dieser  Kultur  hebt  sich  scharf 
die  Babylonische  ab."     (Ertrag  etc,  p.,   25). 

"  Nothing  forbids  our  holding  that  Abraham  had  scribes  in  his  service  and 
probably  possessed  in  cuneiform  the  substance  of  Gen.  I-XI.  He  would  also  take 
care  that  the  chief  events  of  his  life  were  recorded. 


LITERATURE  IN   CANAAN   IN  THE   PRE-MOSAIC  PERIOD.         73 

nians/"*  It  must  be  allowed  that  the  proof  of  cuneiform  writ- 
ing in  Palestine  during  the  period  in  question  is  slender.  It 
would,  however,  be  passing  strange,  if  the  Canaanites,  who 
have  hitherto  been  regarded  by  the  whole  Graf-Wellhausen 
school,  as  the  possessors  and  purveyors  of  the  very  quintes- 
sence of  Canaanite-Israelite  lore,  had  not  extensively  employed 
the  cuneiform  script  in  the  pre-Amama  period.  Unless,  there- 
fore, the  Hittites  and  particularly  the  Mitannians  adopted  the 
cuneiform  at  a  much  earlier  date  than  usually  assumed,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  the  Palestinians  could  have  gotten  the  Baby- 
lonian language  and  script  from  that  quarter. 

That  the  Canaanites  stood  high  culturally  from  the  twen- 
tieth century  onward  is  admitted  by  scholars  generally.  So 
Driver:  ''We  find  a  Canaanite  civilization  in  Palestine  cir. 
2000  to  1200  B.  C. :  this  is  recognizable  especially  by  the  pot- 
tery. Side  by  side  with  this  we  have  traces  of  the  very  different 
Babylonian  civilization,  which  it  is  evident  influenced  Canaan 
deeply  during  many  centuries  before  the  Hebrew  occupation. 
.  .  .  For  a  century  or  two  before  the  Israelite  period  the 
pottery  found  at  both  Gezer  and  Taanach  testifies  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  art  and  civilization  of  Phoenicia,  Crete,  the  islands 
of  the  Aegean  Sea,  and  Cyprus"  (Mod.  Res.,  p.,  86).  Unless 
the  proto-Phoenician  alphabet  was  employed  by  the  Amorite- 
Canaanite-Phoenician  population  as  early  as  2000  B.  C.  (as 
suggested  by  Hommel  and  confirmed  by  many  data)  we  incline 
to  the  view  that  the  cuneiform  was  employed  continuously  to 
a  late  date. 

Amorife  Literature. 

Assuming  that  the  cuneiform  was  current  in  Canaan  from 
the  earliest  times,  we  can  understand  that  the  Amorites  were  in 
a  position  to  cultivate  literature.  Even  though  Prof.  Clay  has 
not  adduced  any  distinctively  Amorite  (as  over  against  Baby- 
lonian) inscriptions,  and  though  his  line  of  argument  is  largely 

"  See  D.  D.  Luckenbill  on  "Excavations  in  Palestine"  in  Bib.  World  XXXV, 
p.,  101,  who  says:  "In  the  opinion  of  the  writer,  the  Mitannians  borrowed  the  cune- 
iform writing  from  the  Babylonians,  and  in  turn  gave  it  to  their  neighbors  and 
successors,  the  Hittites,  and  from  here  it  spread  along  with  other  Hittite  influ- 
ences into   Syria  and   Palestine Perhaps  the  most  positive  proof  ot  the 

probability  of  this  hypothesis  lies  in  the  fact  that  while  the  excavations  in  Pales- 
tine produced  cuneiform  tablets— at  Tell  el-Hesy,  Gezer,  and  Taanach  scuh  were 
found— in  no  case  were  tablets  found  which  date  from  before  the  Amarna  ^ert- 
od".  L.  adds  in  a  foot-note:  "Even  if  it  should  be  shown  that  cuneiform 
reached  the  Hittites  as  early  as  the  Hammurabi  period,  or  even  earlier,  it  would 
not  affect  our  argument  that  it  was  not  until  the  Amarna  period  that  cueniform 
was  introduced  into  Palestine".  L's  argument  in  general  against  the  Paribaby- 
lonists  is  valid  and  forcible,  but  his  contention  that  the  cuneiform  was  wholly  un- 
known in  Palestine  before  the  Amarna  period  goes  to  the  other  extreme. 


74  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

indirect,  he  has  proved  that  many  deities  and  usages,  heretofore 
regarded  as  Babylonian,  are  of  Western  or  Palestinian  origin. 
"At  the  time  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon  (2000  B.  C),  the 
personal  names  show  that  the  country  was  filled  with  foreign- 
ers, notably  Western  Semites  ....  and  the  names  of  the 
kings  of  the  Isin  Dynasty  (third  millennium  B.  C.)  indicate 
West  Semitic  influence  upon  Babylonia".  The  fact  that  ''in  the 
earliest  known  inscriptions  of  the  Sumerians  and  Babylonians 
the  West  Semitic  Mar  (or  Amar)  figures  prominently",  shows 
that  *'the  sun-cult  of  the  West  was  well  established  in  the  ear- 
liest known  period  of  Babylonian  history,  and  doubtless  already 
had  had  a  long  history  of  development"  {op.  cit.,  pp.,  96,  loi, 
108).^^  A  strong  argument  is  advanced  for  the  view  that  the 
Biblical  accounts  of  the  Creation,  Sabbath,  Antediluvians  and 
Deluge,  go  back  to  very  ancient  Amorite  or  West-Semitic 
sources,  some  of  which  were  afterward  carried  to  Babylonia. 

It  is  gradually  coming  to  be  recognized  among  Semitists 
that  not  only  was  Canaan  far  advanced  in  culture  and  literature 
in  the  third  and  the  second  millennium  B.  C,  but  that  the  West- 
land  contributed  its  share  to  the  literature  and  religion  of  the 
East.  The  indebtedness  was  not  all  on  one  side.  Communi- 
cation between  the  East  and  the  West  was  with  rare  exceptions 
constant.  Says  Prof.  G.  A.  Barton :  'Tn  the  reign  of  Sham- 
suiluna,  Hammurabi's  successor,  a  man  in  Sippar  leased  a 
wagon  for  a  year  with  the  stipulation  that  it  should  not  be 

driven  to  Kittim,  i.  e.,  the  Mediterranean  West-land 

During  the  latter  part  of  this  period  there  was  a  considerable 
movement  eastward  from  the  Syrian  coast  into  Babylonia.  The 
migrations  were  accordingly  reciprocal.  They  were  not  all  in 
one  direction"  (Jour.  Bib.  Lit.,  XXVIII,  155). 

Sayce,  while  not  agreeing  altogether  with  Clay,  allows  that 
he  has  shown  that  the  Amorite  element  cannot  be  neglected  in 
future  researches  into  the  early  civilization  of  the  East.  ''The 
Amorites  lent  a  good  deal  to  Semitic  Babylonia,  notably  the 
name  and  worship  of  Hadad,  the  Amorite  god,  and  the  culture 
and  literature  of  Babylonia  passed  to  the  Israelites  through  an 
Amorite  medium"  (Expos.  Times,  Oct.,  1910). 

Clay's  position  has  received  strong  support  from  L.  W. 
King  in   his   authoritative   "History  of   Sumer   and  Akkad". 

"  Clay  argues  that  other  gods  of  the  Babylonian  pantheon  were  originally 
Western,  as  Uru,  Nergal,  Marduk,  Ninib,  Urash,  Shamash,  Addu  or  Adad,  Nabu 
and  a  few  others  ( —  truly  a  formidable  array  — )  and  adduces  cogent  reasons 
for  his  conclusions,  —  reasons  which  cannot  be  ignored  by  the  Panbabylonists. 


LITERATURE  IN   CANAAN   IN  THE  PRE-MOSAIC  PERIOD.         75 

"The  immigration  of  Semitic  nomads  into  Syria  and  Northern 
Babylonia  may  possibly  have  been  caused  by  periods  of  aridity 
in  Central  Arabia.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the 
early  Semites  reached  the  Euphrates  by  way  of  the  Syrian 
coast  and  founded  their  first  Babylonian  settlements  in  Akkad. 
.  .  ^.  In  view  of  the  absence  of  Semitic  influence  in  Sumer 
during  the  earlier  periods,  it  may  be  conjectured  that  the  Sem- 
itic immigrants  did  not  reach  Babylonia  from  the  South,  but 
from  the  North-West,  after  traversing  the  Syrian  coast-lands. 
The  first  great  influx  of  Semitic  nomad  tribes  left  colonists  be- 
hind them  in  that  region,  who  afterwards  as  the  Amurru,  or 
Western  Semites,  pressed  on  in  their  turn  into  Babylonia  and 
established  the  earliest  independent  dynasty  in  Babylonia"  (pp., 
VIII,  55).^^ 

Under  all  these  circumstances  it  is  clear  that  Canaan  in  the 
pre-Mosaic  period,  far  from  being  a  barbarous  region,  pos- 
sessed the  elements  of  culture  and  literature  existing  in  the 
ancient  Semitic  world  generally.  The  people  spoke  a  language 
essentially  Hebraic ;  and  even  if  the  Phoenician  script  was  not 
as  yet  introduced,  the  cuneiform  was  employed  not  only  in  for- 
eign correspondence  and  business  transactions,  but  perhaps  by 
the  whole  official  class.  The  references  to  the  Amorites,  Ca- 
naanites,  Phoenicians,  Sidonians,  etc.,  in  the  Egyptian  and  Baby- 
lonian monuments,  as  well  as  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Old 
Testament,  leave  no  doubt  that  Canaan  had  its  own  writing  and 
literature  long  before  the  Amarna  Letters.  That  only  a  small 
part  of  this  has  been  recovered  need  not  surprise  us,  seeing  that 
prior  to  1888  the  learned  world  was  in  total  ignorance  of  any 
such  extensive  literature  as  that  of  the  Amarna  period. 

The  results  already  obtained  from  excavations  encourage 
the  hope  that  the  mounds  of  Palestine  contain  valuable  literary 
treasures  awaiting  the  spade  of  the  excavator. 

"  King  holds  that  there  was  a  return  movement :  "It  was  by  the  coastal 
regions  of  Syria  that  the  first  Semitic  immigrants  from  the  South  reached  the 
Euphrates,  and  it  was  to  Syria  that  the  stream  of  Semitic  influence,  now  impreg- 
nated with  Sumerian  culture,   returned"   (p.,   47). 


CHAPTER  V. 

EXTENT  AND  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW 
LITERATURE. 

We  propose  now  to  inquire  whether  the  Hebrews  were 
intellectually  inferior  to  their  neighbors  and  failed  to  cultivate 
letters  until  a  late  date,  or  whether  in  fact  they  acquired  the 
art  of  writing  and  produced  a  high-grade  literature  at  a  date 
very  much  earlier  than  allowed  by  the  Grafians.  We  confine 
ourselves  here  to  the  statements  of  the  Old  Testament  itself, 
reserving  for  a  later  chapter  the  discussion  of  controverted 
points. 

A.    HEBREW     LITERATURE     IN     THE     DAVID-JOSIAH     PERIOD. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  support  at  length  the  proposition  that 
from  the  time  of  Solomon  to  Hezekiah,  and  thence  to  Josiah, 
Israel  produced  a  large  body  of  literature  of  the  most  varied 
character,  prophetical,  historical  and  poetical.  Without  citing 
here  any  books  and  records  concerning  whose  exact  date  schol- 
ars are  not  agreed,  there  remain  many  records,  narratives  and 
prophecies  written  in  this  period. 

J.  The  Writing  Prophets. 

We  have,  as  perhaps  the  most  important,  the  so-called 
early  writing  prophets  of  the  eighth  and  seventh  centuries,  as 
Amos,  Hosea,  Joel,  Isaiah,  Micah,  Nahum  and  Zephaniah; 
then  somewhat  later,  Jeremiah,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Obadiah,  Ha- 
bakkuk,  etc.  It  is  allowed  on  all  sides  that  the  earliest  of  these, 
Amos  and  Hosea,  wrote  in  a  style  characterized  by  the  very 
perfection  of  literary  art  and  with  a  scope  of  information  re- 
markable for  that  age.  Prof.  J.  Robertson  in  accounting  for 
this  high  culture  pointed  out  that  literary  composition  had  been 
practised  in  the  "schools  of  the  Prophets"  from  the  time  of 
Samuel.^     Accepting  the  Biblical  accounts  as  correct,  we  must 

^  "If   we   admit   the   existence   of   these  schools    at  all,    we   must    give   the    in- 
mates   something   to    do   connected   with   the   religion    and   fortunes    of  the    nation. 

Given  the  power  to  write,  and  such  incentives,  there  is  no  reason  why 

many  of  the  compositions  crowded  together  into  the  so-called  first  literary  age 
may  not  in  whole  or  in  part  belong  to  an  earlier  period"  (Robertson,  Early  Re- 
ligion  Israel,    94). 

78 


EXTENT  AND  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE.  ']'] 

infer  that  the  three  centuries  between  Solomon  and  Hezekiah 
were  characterized  by  intense  hterary  activity.  According  to 
Prov.  25:  I,  "the  men  of  Hezekiah  copied  out"  various  "prov- 
erbs of  Solomon".  This  must  mean  at  least  that  they  selected 
and  transcribed  from  a  large  collection  of  Solomonic  proverbs 
such  as  suited  their  purpose.'  Whether  the  source  from  which 
they  copied  was  one  book  or  many,  is  not  clear,  but  the  state- 
ment implies  a  literary  class — a  body  of  men  who,  we  may  sup- 
pose, cultivated  literature  as  assiduously  as  the  scribes  and 
chroniclers  of  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  courts. 

2.  Historical  Literature. 

There  was  also  produced  in  this  period  a  large  body  of 
theocratic  history,  as  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  From 
the  statements  contained  in  these  and  other  books,  it  is  evident 
that  the  authors  of  the  extant  historical  books  drew  largely  on 
written  sources  no  longer  extant,  as  "the  History  of  Nathan  the 
Prophet"  and  many  others.  "The  historical  value  of  the  great 
prophetic  record  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  it  consists  for  the  most  part  of  verbatim  quotations 
from  earlier  histories  and  biographies.  .  .  .  The  growth  of 
these  books  was  gradual  ....  From  their  themes  and  liter- 
ary character,  as  well  as  from  their  relation  to  the  longer  Jude- 
an  narrative,  it  may  be  fairly  inferred  that  the  Saul  and  David 
histories  were  written  not  very  long  after,  if  not  before,  the 
division  of  the  Hebrew  empire  at  the  death  of  Solomon"  ( Isra- 
el's His.  and  Bio.  Narratives,  pp.,  10,  12,  by  C.  F.  Kent).  It 
is  clear  that  in  the  post- Solomonic  period  written  history  was 
produced  on  a  large  scale  and  in  a  script  easily  read. 

Already  in  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon,  much  was 
done  in  this  direction.  "With  the  reign  of  Solomon  a  new  era 
in  Hebrew  history  opened.  .  .  .  Literature,  as  well  as  art, 
was  probably  encouraged  by  him.  In  addition  to  the  chancel- 
lor or  recorder,  two  scribes  were  counted  among  the  important 
officials  of  his  court  (I  K.  4:  3).  Their  duty  was  probably 
primarily  to  conduct  the  royal  correspondence,  but  for  diplo- 
matic reasons,  if  for  no  other,  a  record  of  the  most  important 
events  of  each  reign  would  also  be  needed  for  reference"  (Kent, 
op.  cit.,  p.,  14).  That  some  of  the  sources  used  were  handed 
down  from  early  times'  is  the  almost  unanimous  judgment  of 
scholars.     The  prophets  and  priests  as  well  as  the  professional 


78  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

scribes,   would   be   interested   in   preserving   and   transcribing 
carefully  the  old  records. 

S.  Poetical  Literature. 

Concerning  the  date  of  the  poetical  books,  we  encounter 
the  two  antagonistic  theories  entertained  regarding  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  conservatives  assigning  the  greater  part  of  this  liter- 
ature to  the  traditional  authors,  the  Grafians  allowing  them  little 
or  nothing.  The  later  criticism  denies  that  any  considerable 
part  of  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  EcclesiasLes  and  the  Song,  comes 
down  from  the  David-Solomon  period.  Nevertheless  a  very 
strong  argument  can  be  adduced  for  the  other  side.  "A  group 
of  psalms  was  admitted  by  both  Ewald  and  Hitzig  to  be  Dav- 
idic  (Pss.  3,  4,  7,  8,  11,  19  a).  Ewald  admitted  in  addition 
Pss.  2,  20,  21,  24,  29,  32,  no;  and  Hitzig  9,  10,  12,  13,  15,  16, 
17,  19  b.  The  Davidic  authorship  of  these  psalms  is,  however, 
denied  by  the  latest  critics.  They  have  not  discovered  an>thing 
in  them  which  Ewald  and  Hitzig  did  not  see,  but  the  evidence 
of  literary  activity  which  these  psalms  afford,  the  spirituality 
which  pervades  them,  their  reference  to  the  law,  and  their 
recognition  of  but  one  place  for  Jehovah's  worship  are  features 
which  are  incompatible  with  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory.  On 
ultimate  analysis,  this  incompatibility  is  the  sole  difficulty  with 
these  psalms.  To  save  the  theory,  the  Davidic  authorship  is 
denied'^  (Dr.  J.  D.  Davis,  Bib.  World,  VII,  p.,  502). 

Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs  denies  that  the  ascription  of  74  psalms 
to  David  has  any  critical  value,  but  he  finds  thirteen  psalms 
(3^7.  18,  34,  51,  52,  54,  56,  57,  59,  60,  63,  142)  which  have  in 
their  titles  references  to  incidents  in  the  life  of  David.  *Tt  is 
probable  that  these  13  psalms  constituted  a  little  collection  of 
Davidic  psalms"  (Book  of  Psalms,  I,  LXHI).  None  of  these 
in  its  present  form  is  by  David,  though  ''Ps.  18  in  its  original 
form  was  probably  Davidic,  and  probably  7,  60".  We  are  not 
concerned  here  so  much  with  the  exact  number  of  Davidic 
psalms  as  with  the  evidence  of  literary  activity  in  the  reign  of 
the  great  monarch.  Dr.  Briggs'  admission  that  such  a  mag- 
nificent composition  as  Ps.  18  ("after  removing  the  glosses 
there  is  nothing  in  the  way  to  his  authorship",  "the  ode  stands 
out  in  simple  grandeur  as  fittingly  appropriate  to  the  historical 
experiences  of  David,"  p.,  140,  op.  cit.),  in  its  original  form 
proceeds  from  David,  implies  that  the  old  warrior  may  have 
written  others. 


EXTENT  AND  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE.  79 

B.     HEBREW    LITERATURE    IN    THE   PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD. 

That  writing"  and  literature  were  extensively  cultivated  in 
the  times  of  David  and  Solomon  is  a  well-established  fact,  con- 
ceded even  by  the  extremists  of  the  Wellhausen  school.  Scribes, 
amanuenses,  recorders,  secretaries  and  chroniclers  were  indis- 
pensable functionaries  at  the  court.  Under  David,  Jehosha- 
phat  was  at  the  head  of  the  recorders  or  chroniclers,  and  Sera- 
iah  was  chief  of  the  scribes  or  secretaries  (2  S.  8:  16,  17). 
Under  Solomon,  Elihoreph  and  Ahijah  were  the  head  scribes 
or  secretaries,  and  Jehoshaphat  the  chief  recorder  (i  K.  4:  3, 
4).  The  word  translated  "vecordQr"  (maj^kir)  denoted  an  at- 
tache of  the  court  whose  duty  was  to  record  important  events 
for  future  reference.  This  was  a  universal  custom  throughout 
the  East  and  probably  in  vogue  among  the  Hebrews  from  early 
times.  In  Exodus  we  read :  ''Jehovah  said  unto  Moses,  write 
this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book".^  The  remembrancer  of  Da- 
vid's time  was  ''a  state  officer  of  high  rank,  who  seems  not  only 
to  have  kept  a  record  of  events,  but  to  have  acted  as  the  king's 
adviser"  (Kirkpatrick,  2  Sam.,  p.,  no). 

The  data  and  references  in  Samuel  and  Kings  render  it 
clear  that  writing  was  well  known  and  in  extensive  use  in  the 
time  of  David.  This  implies  a  long  preparatory  stage  of  prac- 
tice of  the  art  in  Israel.  The  contents  of  the  early  Old  Testa- 
ment books,  rightly  construed,  and  the  witness  of  outside  au- 
thorities, bear  out  the  contention  that  literature,  written  litera- 
ture, and  not  merely  oral  literature,  (a  contradiction  in  ad- 
jecto),  flourished  from  time  immemorial  among  the  Hebrews. 

Various  books  and  writings  are  specifically  mentioned. 
David's  Lament  over  Saul  and  Jonathan,  2  S.  i :  18,  is  said  to 
have  been  recorded  in  the  already  existing  ''Book  of  Jashar". 
The  latter  contained  other  pieces,  such  as  the  poem  from  which 
the  quotation  regarding  the  standing-still  of  the  Sun  and  Moon 
in  the  timic  of  Joshua,  Judges  10:  11 -13,  was  taken.  *'The 
Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah",  mentioned  in  Num.  21,  must 
have  been  very  ancient.  Jotham's  Parable  of  the  trees  anoint- 
ing a  king,  Jud.  9:  1-21,  stands  in  a  very  ancient  stratum,  ac- 
cording to  Driver  and  most  critics.  In  Jud.  8 :  14,  we  have  an 
account  of  a  young  man  of  Succoth  taken  as  prisoner,  who 
wrote  down  for  Gideon  the  names  of  yy  princes  and  elders. 


*  As  this  stands  in   the  E  Code,   the   charge  cannot  be  brought  that   the   pas- 
sage is  late. 


80  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

The  fact  that  a  youth  taken  at  random  could  write  implies  a 
general  knowledge  of  the  art  among  the  people. 

Deborah's  Triumphal  Ode,  Jud.  5:  1-31,  is  almost  univer- 
sally admitted,  even  by  the  most  radical  critics,  to  have  been 
composed  about  the  time  of  the  events  celebrated,  i.  e.  cir.  1200 
II 50.  We  can  go  back  even  further.  The  age  of  Joshua  is 
represented  as  one  of  considerable  literary  activity.  According 
to  Josh.  8 :  32,  "he  wrote  there  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  which  he  wrote  in  the  presence  of  the  children 
of  Israel"."  It  is  clear  that  the  author  of  the  book  of  Joshua 
understood  that  Joshua  wrote  or  caused  to  be  written  a  copy 
of  the  law.  So  too  the  written  description  (Josh.  18  and  19) 
of  the  unoccupied  territory  implies  a  general  knowledge  of 
writing. 

Writing  in  the  Mosaic  Age. 

That  writing  is  assumed  as  well  known  among  the  He- 
brews in  the  time  of  the  Exodus  is  evident  from  many  passages 
in  the  Hexateuch  and  the  early  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
See  Ex.  17 :  14;  24:  4,  7;  34:  i ;  Num.  5:  23;  17:  3  (Heb. 
17*  18)  ;  33-2;  Deut.  6:9;  11 :  20;  31 :  9,  etc.  In  Ex.  17: 
14  we  read :  "And  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses,  write  this  for  a 
memorial  in  a  book".  This  stands  in  J,  a  document  assigned 
by  the  critics  to  about  850  B.  C.  The  narrator  must  have  ob- 
tained his  information  either  from  oral  tradition,  or  from  some 
extant  work,  perhaps  the  "Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah". 
In  any  event  he  must  be  assumed  to  have  relied  on  trustworthy 
authority,  reaching  back  to  the  Exodus.  Again,  Ex.  24:  4: 
"Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Jehovah",  stands  in  J,  a  very 
ancient  document.  Here  also  the  narrator  must  have  had  un- 
equivocal proof  that  Moses  wrote  or  caused  to  be  written  the 
Decalog  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  Num.  5:13:  "And 
the  priest  shall  write  these  curses  in  a  book";  17:  i  :  "Write 
thou  every  man's  name  upon  his  rod".  Deut.  6:9:  "And  thou 
shalt  write  them  upon  the  door-posts  of  thy  house";  31:  9: 
"And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  the  priests". 

We  adduce  these  passages  with  the  admission  that  their 
cogency  depends  upon  the  date  of  the  codes  in  which  they  occur 
(the  great  critical  question),  but  they  furnish  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  authors  of  these  codes  without  exception  ascribe 
writing  to  Moses  and  his  contemporaries.  The  assumed  un- 
known writers  may  have  been  mistaken,  but  in  that  case  it  is 

*  This   stands  in  the   early  JE    Code. 


EXTENT  AND  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE.  8 1 

difficult  to  account  for  the  uniform  tradition  in  all  the  codes 
that  writing  was  well  known  in  the  Mosaic  age.  Even  if  it  be 
allowed  that  J,  E,  P,  and  D  "nod"  occasionally,  it  is  hard  to 
believe  that  they  all  "nod"  at  the  same  time  and  place. 

C.     THE    PROBLEM    OF   THE    DATE  OF    ORIGIN    AND    INTRODUCTION    OF  THE 

PHOENICIAN    ALPHABET.  i 

According  to  the  traditional  view  the  Pentateuch  was  writ- 
ten in  the  Mosaic  period,  and  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges 
not  far  from  1300  to  iioo  B.  C,  that  is  they  are  affirmed  to 
have  been  committed  tO'  writing  some  centuries  before  the 
earliest  remains  of  writing  in  the  Phoenician  characters.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Grafians,  the  Phoenician  alphabet  did  not  reach 
the  Hebrews  until  1000  B.  C,  and  so  of  course  they  had  no 
literature  before  that  time.  If  now  it  were  certain  that  the 
Phoenician  alphabet  (whenever  invented)  was  generally  intro- 
duced about  the  Amarna  period  (1400  B.  C),  a  strong  argu- 
ment could  be  constructed  for  the  view  that  the  above,  as  well 
as  the  later,  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  transmitted  from  the  first 
in  the  Phoenician  characters.  Or,  if  we  had  even  a  dozen  lines 
of  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  cuneiform  script,  it 
might  be  inferred  that  the  early  parts  of  the  O.  T.  were  com- 
posed in  those  characters.  But  in  the  absence  of  definite  infor- 
mation either  way,  we  are  compelled  to  resort  to  a  critical,  his- 
torical and  palseographical  inquiry  as  to  the  actual  mode  in 
which  the  early  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  transmitted.  Such  an 
inquiry  is  fundamental  if  we  would  get  at  the  real  kernel  of 
Pentateuch  criticism. 

The  claim  is  constantly  made  by  a  certain  class  of  writers 
that  Moses  as  a  matter  of  course  wrote  the  Pentateuch;  by 
others  that  he  wrote  none  of  it.  The  parties  to  the  controversy 
rarely  touch  on  the  preliminary  question  as  to  the  script  that 
would  be  employed.  The  first  of  these  seldom  mention  the 
fact  that  if  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  he  must  have  employed 
either  the  Egyptian  hieratic,  or  the  Babylonian  cuneiform,  or 
the  Phoenician  script,  though  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  have  not  a 
scrap  of  direct  evidence  that  he  used  either  of  these.  Hundreds 
of  pages  are  consumed  in  showing  the  learning  of  Moses  and 
the  historicity  and  Egypticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  scarcely  a 
page  is  devoted  to  the  all-important  question  whether  Moses 
could  write  at  all  in  any  of  these  scripts,  even  if  the  Phoenician 
were  current  in  his  age.  On  the  other  hand  the  deniers  of  the 
6 


82  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  affirm  that  Moses  could  not 
have  written  the  Pentateuch  for  the  obvious  reason  that  both 
the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  scripts  were  too  cumbersome  and 
unwieldy  for  this  purpose,  and  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was 
not  yet  invented,  or  at  least  was  not  yet  employed  for  literary 
purposes  by  the  Hebrews. 

The  controversy  hinges,  therefore,  largely,  not  on  an  a  priori 
and  critical  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch,  nor  yet  on  the  assumed 
historical  situation  implied  in  the  codes  (the  line  of  argument 
pursued  ahke  by  the  common  conservative  and  radical  criti- 
cism), but  on  the  prior  question  of  the  script  employed  by  the 
Hebrews  in  the  Mosaic  age,  and  specifically  the  date  of  their 
adoption  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet.  The  situation,  according- 
ly demands  a  thorough  inquiry  into  the  date  of  origin  of  the 
Phoenician,  or  more  correctly,  Semitic,  alphabet  with  the  view 
of  determining  whether  already  at  the  date  of  the  Exodus, 
Moses  and  his  scribes  may  have  employed  this  script.* 

*  To  the  lay  reader  it  may  seem  unnecessary  to  devote  so  much  space  to  this 
phase  of  the  subject,  but  it  will  be  seen  that  thoroughness  demands  it. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THEORIES  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PHOENICIAN 
ALPHABET. 

IMPORTANCE    OF   THE    SUBJECT. 

The  results  reached  thus  far  warrant  the  inference  that 
writing  was  sufficiently  far  advanced  in  Canaan  in  1500  B.  C. 
to  be  employed  for  literary  purposes.  The  Tell  el  Amarna  tab- 
lets show  that  at  this  time  the  Babylonian  script  was  well  known 
at  least  to  scribes  in  all  the  provinces  at  the  Eastern  end  of  the 
Mediterranean.  The  evidence  from  the  Old  Testament,  as  ad- 
mitted by  critics  of  all  shades,  shows  further  that  the  Hebrews 
were  well  acquainted  with  writing  in  the  times  of  Samuel, 
David  and  Solomon.  How  far  back  of  this  period,  writing  was 
employed  in  Israel  for  literary  purposes  is  a  disputed  question ; 
but  if,  as  shown  above,  the  Song  of  Deborah,  was  committed  to 
writing  from  the  first,  we  have  at  the  approximate  date  of  11 50 
B.  C.  a  poem  of  considerable  length  composed  in  a  script  with 
which  the  writer  gives  every  indication  of  being  quite  familiar. 

In  what  script  was  this  early  Hebrew  literature  composed? 
Was  it  the  Egyptian,  the  Babylonian,  or  the  Phoenician?  We 
shall  endeavor  to  show  that  it  was  the  latter,  and  that  the  script 
was  invented  and  introduced  at  a  period  considerably  earlier 
than  is  generally  assumed.  It  may  be  well  to  remark  that  in  un- 
dertaking to  determine  the  origin  oi  the  Phoenician  alphabet  we 
enter  a  field  in  which  the  literature  is  immense,  forming  a  large 
library,  but  the  generally  accepted  results  very  meager.  In 
fact  we  admit  at  the  outset  that  no  one  knows  when,  where,  or 
by  whom  that  alphabet  was  devised  and  introduced.  The  prob- 
lem has,  however,  been  simplified  and  reduced  to  narrower  lim- 
its in  recent  years  through  the  discovery  and  decipherment  of 
some  very  ancient  inscriptions.  These  have  enabled  epigraph- 
ists  to  carry  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  script  in  question  back 
considerably  further  than  critics  conceded  twenty  years  ago. 
We  shall  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  reader  while  we  examine 
somewhat  minutely  this  evidence,  which,  though  dry  and  techni- 
cal, furnishes  the  most  direct  and  cogent  proof  that,  after  all, 

83 


84  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  Pentateuch  and  the  early  Old  Testament  books  may  have 
been  committed  to  writing  at  the  time  assigned  in  the  generally 
accepted  chronology.  The  discussion  of  this  phase  of  the  sub- 
ject may  seem  unnecessary,  but  the  gain  in  the  end  will  be 
immense. 

The  logic  of  the  Wellhausen  school  runs  thus :  i .  There 
can  be  no  literature  in  the  real  sense  without  writing.  2.  The 
Hebrews  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Phoenician  script  or  of  writ- 
ing for  literary  purposes  until  long  after  the  date  of  the  Exodus. 
3.  Ergo,  they  could  not  have  reduced  any  part  of  the  Penta- 
teuch to  writing  before  about  950  B.  C.  In  investigating  the 
date  of  the  origin  and  spread  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet,  we 
com.e,  therefore,  to  the  very  core  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  con- 
troversy. Obviously  if  it  cannot  be  shown  that  Moses  wrote 
in  either  the  Egyptian,  cuneiform  or  Phoenician  script,  or,  if 
the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  not  invented  until  1,000  B.  C,  or 
if  invented,  was  unknown  to  the  Hebrews  before  that  date,  all 
argumentation  whether  or  not  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  or 
any  part  of  it  is  worse  than  useless.  If  on  the  other  hand  it 
should  appear  that  the  Phoenician  script  was  invented  about  the 
fifteenth  century  and  if  further  there  is  strong  proof  that  the 
Hebrews  became  acquainted  therewith  not  long  afterward,  we 
have  historical,  linguistic  and  epigraphic  evidence  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch or  at  least  the  underlying  material  may  have  been  writ- 
ten down  at  a  very  early  period.  The  question  of  the  date  of 
the  introduction  of  the  Phoenician  script  is  thus  fundamental 
to  the  whole  issue  of  the  composition  and  transmission  of  the 
early  Old  Testament  scriptures. 

Since  the  Greek,  Latin,  English  and  other  alphabets  are 
derived  from  the  Phoenician,  the  question  of  its  origin  has  not 
merely  Biblical,  but  also  general  interest.  The  subject  pos- 
sesses a  certain  fascination  from  the  fact  that  we  have  no  scrap 
of  reliable  information  from  any  quarter  and  are  consequently 
compelled  to  theorize.  We  review  the  chief  theories  in  the 
following  excursus. 

excursus:  historical  resume. 

I.  The  Phoenician   Origin. 

(i).  Dissemination  by  the  Phoenicians.  The  classical  writers  in 
general  relate  that  the  Greeks  derived  their  alphabet  from  the  Phoe- 
nicians and  accordingly  inferred  that  they  were  the  inventors.  Hero- 
dotus says :  "These  Phoenicians  who  came  with  Cadmus  brought  in 
among  the  Hellenes  many  arts  when  they  settled  in  the  land  of  Boeotia, 


THEORIES  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET.    85 

and  especially  letters,  which  did  not  exist,  as  appears,  to  me,  among 
the  Hellenes  before  this  time  .  .  ,  The  lonians,  having  received  let- 
ters by  instruction  of  the  Phoenicians,  changed  their  form  slightly  and 
in  doing  so  they  d-eclared  them  to  be  called  Phoenician,  as  was  just, 
seeing  that  the  Phoenicians  had  introduced  them  into  Hellas"  (V,  58). 
Lucan  says :  "Phoenices  primi,  famae  si  credetur,  aussi  mansuram 
rudibus  vocem  signare  iiguris"  (Phar.  3:  290). 

All  the  Greek  writers  from  Homer  to  Hecataeus  ascribe  to  the 
Phoenicians  a  marked  influence  on  Greek  art  and  letters.  The  islands 
of  the  Aegean  are  represented  as  visited  and  perhaps  colonized  by  the 
Phoenicians,  even  before  the  movement  of  the  Greeks  to  Asia  Minor. 
The:  Greek  language  itself  has  a  number  of  Phoenician  loan-words  for 
articles  of  trade,  weights,  writing-material  and  utensils.  The  Phoeni- 
cians were  doubtless  the  chief  agents  in  the  dissemination  of  the 
script  passing  under  their  name. 

(2).  Did  the  Phoenicians  Invent  the  Alphabet?  We  must  dis- 
tinguish between  the  dissemination  of  the  alphabet  by  the  Phoenicians 
and  its  invention.  It  is  possible  that  the  Phoenicians,  having  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  common  scripts  of  that  day,  selected  the  elements  most 
suitable  for  the  purpose  and  combined  them  into  a  practical  system  on 
the  basis  of  some  such  principle  as  that  of  acrophony,  wlhich  clearly 
underlies  the  Phoenician  alphabet.  A  tradition  recorded  by  Eusebius 
is  to  the  effect,  that  "the  Phoenicians  did  not  claim  to  be  themselves 
the  inventors  of  the  art  of  writing,  but  adrnitted  that  it  was  obtained  by 
them  from  Egypt".  Being  of  Semitic  stock  they  must  be  supposed 
to  have  used  previously  the  cuneiform,  and  through  commercial  rela- 
tions to  have  had  a  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian  hieratic. 

2.  Egyptian  Origin. 

Already  in  the  ancient  world  the  view  was  widespread  that  the 
alphabet  is  of  Egyptian  origin.  Plato,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Plutarch  and 
Tacitus  mention  the  tradition.  In  modern  times  Olshausen  advanced 
the  same  theory,  which  has  been  held  also  by  other  recent  philologists 
and  has  undergone  various  modifications.  The  common  view  is  that 
the  Egyptian  script  never  became  really  alphabetic ;  but  Breasted  and 
other  recent  Egyptologists  hold  that  it  contained  alphabetic  elements 
from  the  first  and  thus  easily  lent  itself  to  the  formation  of  a  true 
alphabet.  Indeed  Breasted  is  so  certain  that  the  Phoenicians  were  indebt- 
ed to  the  Egyptians  for  their  alphabet  that  he  declines  to  argue  the  case, 
but  assumes  it  as  established  beyond  a  peradventure.  He  assigns  the 
origin  to  the  period  of  Merneptah  and  Rammeses  HI,  circa  1225. 

If  we  inquire  into  the  possible  process  by  which  the  Egyptian 
characters  formed  the  basis  of  the  Phoenician,  we  encounter  two  chief 
theories,  namely  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  derived  from  the 
Egyptian  hieratic,  or  from  the  hieroglyphic.  The  former  view  was 
propounded  at  great  length  by  the  French  scholar  Emanuel  de  Rouge 
(Memoire  sur  Vorigine  Egyptienne  de  ['alphabet  Phenicien  Paris,  1874), 
and  is  unreservedly  reproduced  by  Isaac  Taylor  in  his  "Hist,  of  the 
Alphabet"  1898.  The  latter  view  is  represented  by  another  French 
Semitist,  J.  Halevy. 

(i).  Egyptian  Hieratic.  Thte  correctness  of  the  results  reached 
by  de  Rouge  depends  largely  on  the  correctness  of  his  premises.     If 


86  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

these  be  allowed,  the  rest  of  the  argument  follows  almost  necessarily. 
Taylor  says:  "The  secret  of  M.  de  Rouge's  success  in  solving  the 
problem  which  had  baffled  so  many  predecessors  must  be  attributed  to 
his  clear  perception  of  the  fact,  itself  antecedently  probable,  that  the 
immediate  prototypes  of  the  Semitic  letters  must  be  sought,  not,  as 
had  hitherto  been  vainly  attempted,  among  the  hieroglyphic  pictures 
of  the  Egyptian  monuments,  but  among  the  cursive  characters  which 
the  Egyptians  had  developed  out  of  their  hieroglyphics,  and  which 
were  employed  for  literature  and  secular  purposes,  the  hieroglyphic 
writing  being  reserved  for  monumental  and  sacred  uses"  (Alphabet, 
I.,  90). 

De  Rouge  had  recourse  to  an  old  form  of  the  hieratic  script,  orig- 
inating under  the  early  empire,  and  used  during  the  Semitic  conquest 
of  lower  Egypt  known  as  the  Hyksos  invasion.  He  places  the  origina- 
tion of  the  Semitic  alphabet  in  the  period  of  four  or  five  centuries  of 
Semitic  rule  in  Egypt. 

The  form  of  hieratic  writing  chosen  by  de  Rouge  for  comparison 
is  represented  in  the  celebrated  Prisse  Papyrus,  now  in  the  National 
Library,  Paris,  and  supposed  to  date  from  the  eleventh  dynasty,  ca. 
2100  B.  C.  This  is  brought  into  comparison  with  a  comparatively 
late  form  of  the  Phoenician  script.  When  de  Rouge  first  put  forward 
his  hypothesis  in  1859,  neither  the  Moabite  Stone  nor  other  early  Sem- 
itic inscriptions  had  yet  been  discovered;  and  so  he  compared  the  hie- 
ratic with  the  Eshmunazer  inscription  of  the  fifth  century  B.  C,  which, 
though  representing  the  same  general  type  of  writing,  it  at  least  four 
centuries  later  than  the  Moabite  Stone  and  accordingly  so  much  fur- 
ther removed  from  the  early  hieratic.  Here  is  an  interval  of  at  least 
sixteen  centuries.  Allowance  ought  to  be  made  for  changes  naturally 
taking  place  during  this  period.  Again,  the  hieratic  characters  are 
cursive,  freely  traced  by  a  pencil,  while  the  Semitic  are  cut  in  stone 
with  a  chisel.  These  and  other  objections  suggest  themselves  at 
once.  Since  the  discovery  of  early  Phoenician  inscriptions,  it  has  been 
found  that  the  characters  resemble  more  nearly  the  Egyptian  hieratic 
than  those  selected  by  de  Rouge.  Hence  his  theory  has  received  un- 
expected support  from  this  quarter.  It  is  the  fashion  now  to  speak 
slightingly  of  de  Rouge's  theory,  but  a  careful  camparison  of  all  the 
forms  of  script  accessible  to  us  may  necessitate  a  more  favorable 
judgment. 

It  is  known  that  of  the  four  hundred  picture-signs,  some  forty- 
five  had  approached  a  syllabic  character.  In  order  to  avoid  the 
charge  of  selecting  letters  to  suit  his  purpose,  de  Rouge  confined 
himself  to  the  so-called  "Egyptian  Alphabet"  which  according  to 
Plutarch  consisted  of  twenty-five  letters.  It  is  from  these  twenty-five 
symbols  that  he  attempts  to  derive  the  twenty-two  Semitic  letters. 
De  Rouge's  hypothesis  is  substantially  that  some  Semite  selected  and 
employed  21  of  the  most  suitable  hieratic  characters  as  the  prototypes 
of  the  alphabet  known  as  the  Phoenician.  His  theory  has  been  ac- 
cepted by  a  number  of  experts,  as  Lenormant,  Maspero,  Ebers,  Euting. 
It  has  been  opposed  by  no  small  body  of  Orientalists,  as  Lagarde, 
R.  S.  Poole,  Fried.  Delitzsch  and  nearly  the  whole  Wellhausen  school 
who  unite  in  placing  the  origin  of  the  alphabet  much  later,  ca.  1200. 

Lagarde  urges  that  the  letters  teth,  tsadhe,  quoph,  and  ayin,  which 


THEORIES  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET.    87 

denote  sounds  peculiar  to  the  Semitic  languages,  could  not  have  been 
represented  by  hieratic  characters  and  must  have  been  invented  by  the 
Semites  or  derived  from  some  other  source.  He  further  points  out 
that  the  names  of  the  Phoenician  letters  do  not  refer  to  the  Egyptian 
prototypes.  Thus  why  is  the  second  letter  called  beth  (house)  if_  it 
was  derived  from  the  picture  of  a  crane?  To  this  it  may  be  replied 
that  such  a  renaming  is  not  uncommon  in  similar  borrowings  in  other 
languages.  Lagarde's  chief  objection,  however,  is  that  as  a  matter  of 
fact  there  is  no  adequate  resemblance  between  the  Phoenician  letters 
and  the  hieratic  prototypes.  This  objection,  if  sustained,  is  fatal  to  de 
Rouge's  hypothesis,  as  Taylor  admits.  A  comparison  of  the  letters  of 
the  Prisse  Papyrus  with  those  on  the  Moabite  Stone  reveals  upon  first 
glance  nothing  more  than  a  general  resemblance  in  the  case  of  certain 
letters,  as  betJi,  ghimel,  daleth,  wazv,  kaph,  mem,  resh  and  quopJi.  Upon 
closer  inspection  it  is  possible  to  see  some  degree  of  resemblance  in  the 
general  form  and  slant  of  the  letters.  If  to  this  be  added  the  develop- 
ment taking  place  during  the  ten  centuries  between  the  Prisse  letters 
and  the  Moabite,  the  hypothesis  does  not  appear  as  fanciful  as  some- 
times represented. 

(2).  Egyptian  Hieroglyphic.  The  celebrated  French  _  Semitist, 
Joseph  Halevy,  sees  the  nearest  resemblance  to  the  Phoenician  script 
in  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  and  finds  at  least  13  letters  traceable  to 
the  Egyptian.  (See  his  Melanges  d'epigraphie  et  d'archeologie  semi- 
tiques.  Paris,  1874).  But  the  fact  that  he  is  compelled  to  resort_  to 
some  forced  comparisons  in  order  to  establish  the  desired  similarities, 
greatly  weakens  his  own  theory.  He,  however,  writes :  "So  far  as 
my  arguments  are  concerned,  I  consider  them  stronger  than  ever,  and 
not  one  of  the  points  wherein  Taylor  seeks  to  weaken  them  is  tenable. 
In  spite  of  the  careful  selection  made  from  the  characters  of  the 
Prisse  Papyrus,  not  the  least  resemblance  exists  between  them  and 
the  Hebrew  letters  numbered,  i,  2,  3,  7,  8,  9,  10,  12,  14,  15,  17,  22,  The 
ayin  has  no  equivalent  at  all,  and  among  the  other  nine,^  only  four, 
namely  4,  12,  17,  21  have  a  greater  similarity  in  the  hieratic  than 
in  the  Phoenician;  two,  namely,  10  and  19  in  the  Phoenician  than  in 
the  hieratic,  and  one,  waw,  has  a  different  inclination  in  the  two 
systems.  There  remain  therefore  only  two  characters,  18  and  20,  which 
in  any  way  resemble  each  other." 

Halevy  admits  that  only  12  or  13  characters  are  derived  directly 
from  the  hieroglyphs ;  but  by  reason  of  added  strokes  and  lines  the  other 
letters  can  be  obtained.  As  may  be  seen  (in  our  Plate  col.  i,  2,  3)  by 
placing  the  letters  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet  and  the  selected  hiero- 
glyphs side  by  side,  the  similarity  is  very  slight;  and  what  Lagarde 
says  of  de  Rouge  applies  equally  to  Halevy:  'Tf  we  omit  what  does 
not  suit  and  supply  what  is  needed,  it  can  easily  be  shown  that  the  pic- 
ture of  an  ox  looks  like  that  of  an  eagle  and  the  picture  of  a  house  like 
that  of  a  crane". 

3.  Hittite  Origin. 

In  recent  times  the  view  has  been  advanced  that  the  Semitic  script 
is  a  modification  of  the  Hittite.  Since  the  Hittite  inscriptions  con- 
tain forms  resembling  the  oldest  type  of  Hebrew  Letters,  it  is  possible 
that  a  system  of  writing  different  from  the  Egyptian  and  the  cunei- 
form may  have  been  in  use  at  an  early  period  and  become  the  basis 


88  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

of  the  Phcenician  alphabet.  Unfortunately  the  Hittite  inscriptions  have 
been  discovered  only  within  recent  years  and  though  European  and 
American  scholars  have  been  engaged  in  deciphering  them,  only  a  few 
characters  have  been  ascertained  with  certainty.  The  key  to  the  lan- 
guage has  not  yet  been  found. 

The  first  of  these  inscriptions  known  to  scholars  were  four  stones 
found  at  Hamath  to  the  North  of  Palestine  in  1872 ;  since  that  time 
others  have  been  discovered  at  Aintab,  Kadesh,  Marash,  Zinjirli,  Car- 
chemish,  and  Boghaz  Koi.  The  writing  is  alternatively  from  left  to  right 
and  right  to  left,  as  in  early  Greek  inscriptions.  The  letters  are  in  relief 
and  have  apparently  no  connection  with  any  known  script.  From  the 
fact  that  the  Hittites  are  often  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
that  the  discovery  of  the  nature  of  their  writing  and  civilization  may 
throw  light  on  Old  Testament  problems,  the  investigation  of  their 
script  is  a  fascinating  theme  and  has  engaged  the  attention  of  various 
scholars.  ^ 

Of  the  inscriptions  at  Boghaz  Koi  Prof.  B.  B.  Charles  writes: 
"Many  are  written  in  Babylonian,  that  lingua  franca  which  penetrated 
to  all  parts  where  Babylonian  influence  was  felt.  These  naturally  can 
be  read  without  much  difficulty,  and  in  them  is  revealed  a  second 
Amama  correspondence,  letters  to  and  from  all  the  great  powers  of 
the  day,  one  having  the  peculiar  interest  of  being  a  cuneiform  dupli- 
cate of  the  famous  treaty  between  the  Hittites  and  Egyptians.  The 
majority,  however,  are  in  cuneiform  Hittite,  and  form,  together  with 
those  of  the  same  character  found  in  various  parts  of  Cappadocia,  and 
the  tablets  in  this  tongue  found  in  the  Amama  collection,  a  fair-sized 
library"  (N.  Y.  Independent,  Oct.  21,  1909). 

Ward  says:  "We  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  Hittite  script  had  its 
origin  in  an  imitation  of  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics.  In  the  time  of 
Rameses  II  they  engraved  on  an  oblong  silver  plate,  in  their  own 
language,  the  text  of  their  treaty  with  Egypt;  and  probably  their  sys- 
tem of  hieroglyphics  was  invented  some  time  in  the  two  or  three 
centuries  before  that,  but  after  they  first  came  in  contact  with  Egypt" 
(Rec.  Res.  184).  Ward  supposes  that  some  Hittite  merchant  or  sol- 
dier acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  and  con- 
structed a  similar  system  for  his  people.  The  Hittite  characters  are, 
however,  unlike  the  Egyptian,  there  being  no  lions  or  wild  beasts, 
but  herds  of  oxen,  goats  and  hares.  Ward  admits  "that  thus  far  only 
a  few  characters  are  plausibly  identified,  and  no  sentence  can  be  read, 
not  even  a  proper  name". 

Prof.  Charles  recognizes  three  general  periods  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Hittite  inscriptions,  the  first  going  back  to  1500  B,  C,  or 
earlier.  With  the  increased  resources  at  command,  specialists  will 
doubtless  ere  long  decipher  the  language:  meanwhile  in  our  ignorance 
of  the  real  nature  of  the  script  it  is  hazardous  to  affirm  that  it  formed 
even  a  starting-point  for  the  Semitic  alphabet. 


1  It  is  not  known  to  what  family  of  languages  the  Hittite  belongs,  and  much 
ihat  has  been  written  rests  on  pure  conjecture.  The  chief  authorities  are  Sayce, 
The  Hittites.  1888;  W.  Wright,  The  Empire  of  the  Hittites,  1884;  E.  Meyer,  Ge- 
schichte  des  Altertums;  Conder,  The  Hittites,  1898;  W.  H.  Ward  (in  Hilprecht's 
Recent  Research  in  Bible  Lands). 


THEORIES  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET.    89 

4.  The  Cuneiform. 

)Some  scholars  have  undertaken  to  show  that  the  Semitic  alpha- 
bet is  traceable  to  the  Babylonian-Assyrian  cuneiform,  in  its  earlier 
or  later  form. 

(i).  The  Neo-Assyrian.  W.  Decke  traces  the  alphabet  back  to 
the  New  Assyrian.  Tbe  validity  of  his  argumentation  depends  on  the 
existence  of  forms  assumed  as  intermediate  between  the  Assyrian  and 
the  old  Phoenician,  but  not  now  extant.  But  as  Stade  pointed  out, 
it  would  be  more  natural  to  start  with  the  old  Babylonian.  The  hy- 
pothesis  finds  little   support  among  scholars. 

(^).  The  Old  Babylonian.  This  view  is  set  forth  by  Hommel 
in  his  Gesch.  Bab.  u.  Assy,  and  in  the  article  "Babylonia"  in  Hast.  Die. 
Bible.  It  is  substantially  as  follows.  The  Semites  who  developed  the 
alphabet  were  a  nomadic  people,  as  seen  from  the  names  of  the  letters. 
It  is  evident  that  the  seafaring  and  commercial  Phoenicians  would  not 
have  selected  the  terms  ox,  camel,  door,  etc.  Of  the  civilized  nations 
with  whom  the  oldest  nomadic  Semites  came  into  contact,  the  ancient 
Babylonians  are  most  prominent  from  a  phonetic  view-point.  They 
had  a  system  of  phonograms,  whose  general  appearance  resembled  the 
Semitic  alphabet  far  more  than  did  the  Egyptian  hieroglyphics.  Fur- 
ther, the  Babylonian-Assyrian  language  knows  only  one  ch  sound  and 
only  one  ayin.  We  may  suppose  the  development  to  have  been  some- 
what as  follows.  The  Semitic  Beduins  of  the  Syrian  desert,  the  an- 
cestors of  the  Hebrews,  Aramaeans,  and  Arabs,  saw  and  admired  as 
early  as  2000  B.  C.  in  their  expeditions  to  the  Euphrates,  the  old  Baby- 
lonian inscriptions.  That  one  could  in  this  way  perpetuate  events  and 
exploits  seemed  to  them  something  wonderful  and  worthy  of  imita- 
tion (Benzinger  regards  this  as  the  acme  of  improbability).  With  the 
few  phrases  which  they  had  in  common  with  the  Babylonians,  they 
learned  the  names  of  a  series  of  ideograms,  as  alpu,  bitu,  gimillu,  daltu, 
and  so  on,  out  of  which  they  then,  starting  with  the  syllabaries,  ar- 
ranged and  simplified  the  characters  of  their  alphabet.  Thus  they 
obtained  aleph,  beth,  daleth  and  at  least  eigiht  letters,  in  which  the 
similarity  is  marked.  It  is  not  improbable  that  in  a  few  instances  the 
Babylonian  syllabic  signs  were  adopted,  as  in  the  letters  mem  and  he 
and  perhaps  others;  finally,  after  most  of  the  letters  had  been  devised 
a  few  others  were  added. 

The  chief  objection  to  this  view  may  be  summarized  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Nowack.  (a).  The  Bab.-Ass.  cuneiform  is  in  a  transition  stage 
from  the  ideographic  to  the  syllabic  script;  and  the  Persian  was  the 
first  to  introduce  the  syllabic  element,  (b).  Accordingly  the  neighbors 
of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  as  the  Hamathseans,  had  probably  a 
kind  of  picture-writing,  but  no  real  alphabet,  whereas  all  the  Semites 
bordering  on  Egypt  came  to  have  alpbabetic  writing,  (c).  The  old 
Persian  scr^t,  which  undoubtedly  is  a  development  of  the  Babylonian- 
Ass,  writing,  has  an  origin  entirely  different  from  w'hat  must  have 
been  the  course  of  development  in  the  Semitic  alphabet. 

But  Hommel  says :  "It  is  becoming  ever  more  probable  that  even 
the  so-called  Canaanitish  or  Phoenician  form  of  writing,  to  which  the 
S.  Arabian  is  most  closely  allied,  was  derived  not  from  the  Egyptians 
but  from  the  Babylonians,  as  early  as  2000  B.  C.    It  is  a  transformation 


go  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

into  cursive  of  a  number  of  old  Babylonian  signs,  and  may  have  orig- 
inated in  E.  Arabia  about  the  time  of  the  first  N.  Babylonian  dynasty, 
which  was  of  Arabian  descent"  (Hast.  Die.  I,  p.,  223).  Hommel's 
later  view  is  presented  in  his  Grundr.  d.  Geogr.  u.  Gesch.  d.  Alt. 
Orients^  which  we  discus'S  in  Chapter  IX. 

5.  Aramaic  Origin. 

Some  scholars  incline  to  the  view  that  the  origin  is  traceable  to 
the  Aramaeans.  De  Lagarde  was  a  prominent  advocate  of  this  hy- 
pothesis. It  derives  support  from  the  fact  that  of  the  22  letters  at 
least  II  are  rough  pictures  of  the  names,  which  are  in  general  Semitic. 
i\Iany  things  favor  the  claim  that  the  Aramaeans  were  the  first  to  in- 
troduce the  letters  subsequently  known  as  Phoenician;  this  claim  being 
allowed,  it  would  be  a  short  step  to  the  thesis  that  they  were  also 
the  inventors.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Aramaic  was  the  lan- 
guage of  common  intercourse  between  the  East  and  the  West,  be- 
tween Mesopotamia  and  Canaan,  for  a  period  of  nearly  two  thousand 
years,  or  from  Laban  to   Christ. 

In  the  covenant  between  Laban  and  Jacob,  Gen.  31 :  47,  the  "heap 
of  witness"  is  called  Galeed  in  the  Hebrew  of  Jacob,  but  jeger-saha- 
dutha  in  the  old  Aramaic  of  Laban.  The  passage  testifies  that  Laban 
spoke  the  Aramaic  and  that  Jacob,  who  in  his  twenty-years'  sojourn 
in  Mesopotamia  doubtless  acquired  the  Aramaic,  preferred  to  use  here 
his  mother-tongue.  The  incident,  besides  throwing  light  on  the  poly- 
glottal  character  of  that  age,  shows  that  both  Hebrew  and  Aramaic 
were  spoken  in  the  i8th  century  B.  C.  (we  assume  the  essential  cor- 
rectness of  the  narrative). 

It  would  appear  that  the  Semitic  or  Phoenician  script  came  into 
general  use  upon  the  withdrawal  of  Babylonian  influence  in  Palestine 
after  the  15th  century.  McCurdy  adduces  strong  arguments  for  the 
Aramaic  origin :  "It  is  probable  that  it  was  devised  in  the  centre  of 
the  Western  Semites,  and  not  among  the  people  of  the  Mediterranean 
border-land,  whose  business  dealings  were  mainly  with  non-Semites. 
Hence  not  Phoenicia,  but  Mesopotamia,  the  centre  of  the  land  traffic, 
should  be  looked  upon  as  the  region  of  its  origin.  The  great  emporium, 
Charran,  a  home  of  learned  priests,  and  one  of  the  greatest  resorts  of 
travellers  and  merchants  in  western  Asia,  may  possibly  have  been  the 
city  where  it  was  elaborated"  (Hist.  Proph.  &  Mon.,  iii,  25). 
The  chief  arguments  of  McCurdy  are:  (i).  The  language  and  writing 
of  the  Aramaeans  took  the  place  of  the  Babylonian  in  the  active  busi- 
ness life  of  the  whole  region  west  of  the  lower  Euphrates  and  Tigris; 
it  was  the  language  of  business  and  diplomacy  much  earlier  than  the 
time  of  Hezekiah  (2  K.  18:  26).  (2).  Historically,  the  common 
alphabet  changed  far  more  among  the  Aramaeans,  than  among  the 
Phoenicians.  The  Hebrew  or  "square"  characters  were  derived  from 
it.  The  same  change  doubtless  went  on  at  an  earlier  period.  (3).  In 
the  eighth  and  seventh  centuries,  the  Aramaean  language  and  writ- 
ing were  frequently  used  in  Assyria  and  Babylonia  along  with  the 
native  cuneiform.  The  characters  are  practically  identical  with  con- 
temporary Phoenician.  On  the  supposition  that  alphabet-making  be- 
gan with  the  Phoenicians  and  spread  eastward,  it  is  not  easy  to  un- 
derstand why  the  Aramaean  type  diverged  so  little  from  the  Phoenician. 


THEORIES  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET.    9I 

(4).  The  Aramseans  did  most  to  spread  the  knowledge  of  the  alpha- 
bet throug-hout  Western  Asia.  From  the  eighth  century  onward, 
their  inscriptions  are  found  from  N.  Syria  to  West-Central  Arabia, 
and  from  Egypt  to  the  banks  of  the  Tigris. 

*Tn  fine",  says  McCurdy,  "the  historic  role  of  the  Aramaeans, 
played  during  the  formative  era  of  the  alphabet,  their  function  as 
intermediaries  and  negotiators,  and  their  geographical  distribution, 
seem  to  have  predestined  them  to  devise  a  more  fitting  medium  of 
expression  and  communication  than  that  employed  by  their  Babylonian 
and  Hittite  predecessors"   (Op.  cit.,  Ill,  27). 

6.  Cretan  Origin. 

In  addition  to  other  ancient  civilizations,  recent  exploration  has 
brought  to  light  primitive  centers  of  culture  in  the  Greek  islands  and 
archipelagoes.  "There  existed  human  society  in  the  Hellenic  area, 
organized  and  productive,  to  a  period  so  remote  that  its  origins  were 
more  distant  from  the  age  of  Pericles  than  that  age  is  from  our  own. 
We  have  probably  to  deal  with  a  total  period  of  civilization  in  the 
Aegean  not  much  shorter  than  in  the  Nile  Valley"  (Hogarth,  Authori- 
ty &  Archaeology) .  Various  scholars,  notably  A.  J.  Evans,  have  un- 
earthed a  very  ancient  civilization  in  the  islands  of  the  Mediterranean. 
In  his  "Cretan  Pictographs"  (1895)  Mr.  Evans  has  established  the 
fact  of  an  indigenous  culture  and  of  an  extensive  intercourse  between 
Crete  and  Greece,  Egypt  and  Canaan,  centuries  before  the  Phoenicians 
entered  on  their  famous  maritime  expeditions. 

Evans  came  across  some  interesting  specimens  of  ancient  writing. 
The  hieroglyphic  characters  engraved  on  the  21  stones  depicted  by 
him  in  the  above  work  number  Z2,  and  include  pictorial  and  ideo- 
graphic forms  of  the  following  proportion  of  objects:  marine  objects, 
3;  geometrical  figures,  4;  the  human  body,  6;  vegetable  forms,  8;  parts 
of  houses,  8;  arms  and  implements,  17;  animals  and  birds,  17;  uncer- 
tain symbols,  12.  Evans  presents  a  chart  from  which  it  appears  proba- 
ble that  of  the  32  linear  signs  16  approach  to  the  Egyptian  and  16  to  the 
Hittite  forms,  but  all  have  more  or  less  an  independent  character. 
"Some  Cretan  types  present  a  surprising  analogy  to  the  Asianic;  on  the 
other  hand  many  of  the  most  recent  of  _  the  Hittite  symbols  are  con- 
spicuous by  their  absence.  The  parallelism  can  best  be  explained  by 
supposing  that  both  systems  had  grown  up  in  a  more  or  less  conter- 
minous area  out  of  still  more  primitive  pictographic  elements"  (Jour. 
Hel.  StuJ. 

The  above  discoveries  have  been  supplemented  by  others  In 
Egypt.  "Among  the  antiquities  which  make  the  Fayum  so  renowned 
a  district  are  the  remains  of  two  cities ;  Kahun,  which  dates  from 
2500  B.  C.  and  Gurob,  which  is  some  12  centuries  later,  both  sites 
yielding  evidence  of  Asian  and  Aegean  settlers"  (Clodd,  Story  of  the 
Alphabet).  While  digging  there  some  years  ago  Prof.  Flinders  Petrie 
discovered  fragments  of  Aegean  pottery  inscribed  with  characters  re- 
sembling and  in  some  cases  identical  with  those  found  by  Evans. 
The  relics  unearthed  at  Kahun  are,  says  Petrie,  as  old  as  the  city 
and  "it  will  require  a  very  certain  proof  of  the  supposed  Arabian 
source  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet  before  we  can  venture  to  deny  that 
we  'have  here  the  origin  of  the  Mediterranean  alphabets"  (Ten  Years 
Digging  in  Egypt,  134). 


92  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Contemporary  with  the  Cretan  there  were  other  ancient  Mediter- 
ranean scripts.  In  Cyprus  there  existed  a  linear  script  similar  to 
Asian  systems  like  the  Karian  and  Iberian,  which  it  is  supposed  had 
been  developed  among  people  with  whom  the  Phcenicians  were  in  con- 
tact at  a  time  prior  as  far  as  we  at  present  know,  to  the  development 
of  the  Phoenician  script.  Evans  guardedly  suggests  that  the  Cretan 
linear  script  was  the  parent  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet,  admitting, 
however,  that  the  development  of  the  Cretan  signary  was  "aided  by  a 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  highly  developed  Egj-ptian  system". 
In  his  view,  "the  linear  Cretan  system  indicates  a  much  more  advanced 
method  of  writing  than  the  hieroglyphic;  and  the  Egyptian  parallels 
are  here  less  in  evidence".  It  is  the  linear  script  which  resembles  the 
Phoenician  alphabet,  or  rather  "the  theoretic  pictorial  originals  of  the 
Phoenician  forms".  Prsetorius  likewise  holds  that  the  Phoenician 
script-makers  were  indebted  to  the  Cretan. 

A  solution  of  the  whole  problem  hinges  on  the  character  and  an- 
tiquity of  the  Semitic  inscriptions,  which  we  now  proceed  to  consider. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

EARLY  SEMITIC  INSCRIPTIONS. 

I. 

NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS. 
A.    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS    AND  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

I.  Importance  of  Epigraphy  and  Palaeography. 

Two  comparatively  new  sciences,  which  will  have  an  im- 
portant bearing  on  Old  Testament  study  and  investigation,  have 
sprung  up  in  recent  years.  In  epigraphy,  the  science  of  in- 
scriptions, the  ancient  writings  on  stone  are  examined  with  the 
view  of  determining  their  age,  character  and  historical  value; 
palaeography,  the  science  of  ancient  writing,  deals  more  especial- 
ly with  the  question  of  the  age,  trustworthiness  and  general 
character  of  an  ancient  writing  other  than  on  stone  or  metal. 
We  are  concerned  here  more  particularly  with  the  former.^ 

2.  Number   of  Semitic   Inscriptions. 

It  is  only  within  comparatively  recent  times  that  the  need 
has  arisen  for  a  scientific  examination  of  the  ancient  inscrip- 
tions. The  numxber  of  recovered  Phoenician,  Aramaic,  Hebrew, 
Arabic,  Hittite  and  Greek  inscriptions  has  increased  so  prodig- 
iously in  the  last  half  century  that  only  a  thorough  classification 
can  render  them  available  as  trustworthy  witnesses.  Fortun- 
ately the  most  valuable  of  the  Semitic  inscriptions  have  been 
deciphered  and  classified  by  scholars  after  years  of  patient 
study  and  comparison,  and  have  been  published  in  huge  folios 
at  the  expense  either  of  learned  societies  or  of  benevolently  dis- 
posed men  of  large  mxcans.  As  these  volumes  are  found  in  the 
large  libraries,  it  becomes  possible  to  study  the  inscriptions  in 
facsimiles  almost  as  well  as  at  first  hand. 

Ancient  writing  on  any  material  possesses  a  high  value  in 
ascertaining  the  age  of  the  script,  or  the  literature  generally; 
but  writing  on  stone  or  mietal  or  any  durable  substance  posses- 

1  The  phrase  'Semitic  Inscriptions'  in  the  broad  sense  includes  Babylonian, 
Assyrian  and  other  writings  in  a  Semitic  language  whatever  the  script,  but  _  in 
this  work  the  expression  is  restricted  to  inscriptions  in  the  so-called  Phoenician 
script  as  over  against  the  cuneiform. 


94  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

ses  obvious  advantages  over  any  other.  The  exact  forms  of  the 
letters  remain  as  originally  written  thousands  of  years  ago  and 
may  be  studied  in  their  chronological  sequence.  The  evidence 
of  an  inscription,  assuming  that  its  age  is  established,  is  the  evi- 
dence of  a  contemporaneous  witness  and  cannot  be  impeached 
on  the  ground  of  being  a  late  transcript,  as  in  the  case  of  a  cop- 
ied papyrus  or  parchment  roll.  By  means  of  inscriptions,  whose 
date  can  be  determined,  sometimes  definitely,  sometimes  ap- 
proximately, and  by  comparison  of  inscriptions  from  the  same 
or  adjacent,  or  even  widely  separated  countries,  we  can  deter- 
mine the  date  of  other  inscriptions  and  thus  discover  the  marks 
of  age  borne  by  the  script.  It  must  be  remembered  that  in 
ancient  times  and  until  the  age  of  printing,  the  peculiarities, 
merits  and  defects,  the  national  and  local  characteristics  of  writ- 
ing, were  far  more  marked  than  today. 

3.  Semitic  Inscriptions  in  General, 

The  Semitic  inscriptions  are  now  available  for  the  study 
of  the  rise  and  antiquity  of  the  alphabet.  Unfortunately  no 
extant  inscription  represents  the  original  script  by  a  number  of 
centuries,  the  oldest  dating  from  about  1,000  B.  C.  How  long  be- 
fore that  date  the  script  was  invented  is  not  known. ^  The  prob- 
lem, therefore,  is  to  determine  what  light  these  texts  found  in 
widely  separated  regions  and  written  in  various  Semitic  dialects, 
throw  on  the  age  and  country  of  the  original  Phoenician,  or 
more  properly,  Semitic  alphabet.  On  the  basis  of  the  extant 
inscriptions,  we  may  classify  the  types  as  follows:  i.  The 
Phoenician  in  the  narrow  sense.  2.  The  Aramaic.  3.  The 
Hebrew.  4.  The  South  Semitic.  Since  our  purpose  is  to  trace 
the  course  of  development  with  the  view  of  determining  the 
approximate  date  of  the  origin  of  the  Semitic  alphabet  and 
of  its  adoption  by  the  Hebrews,  we  confine  ourselves  to  inscrip- 
tions covering  the  period  between  1,000  and  400  B.  C.^ 

'  The  history  of  the  Semitic  alphabet  is  largely  a  history  of  the  external 
change  of  the  letters.  The  general  form  of  the  letters  in  late  North  Semitic  writ- 
ings is  similar  to  that  in  the  oldest  monuments.  The  Moabite  Stone,  whose  age 
is  definitely  determined  from  the  mention  of  certain  names  and  events,  is  the 
standard  of  comparison  with   other   inscriptions. 

■  A  brief  account  of  these  inscriptions  is  found  in  the  Encyclopedias  and 
Large  Bible  Dictionaries.  More  detailed  information  is  given  in  special  works 
and  journals  on  Semitic  epigraphy,  as  Taylor's  Alphabet,  and  G.  A.  Cooke's  Text- 
Book  of  North-Semitic  Inscriptions. 

The  classic  work,  indispensable  here,  is  the  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Semiticarum 
(designated  by  CIS),  Pt.  I,  Phoenician  and  Punic  Inscriptions;  Pt.  II,  Aramaic 
Inscriptions,  etc.  The  standard  German  authority  is  Mark  Lidzbarski:  Hand- 
buch  der  Nordsemitischen  Epigraphik,  etc.,  I  Text,  II  Tafeln.  Also  his  Ephemerxs 
flier  Semitische  Epigraphik.  Vid.  also  Euting's  Schrifttafel  in  Zimmern's  Ver- 
gleichende  Grammatik    der   Semitischen   Sprachen. 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  95 

B.   THE    PHOENICIAN    INSCRIPTIONS, 

We  classify  as  Phoenician  (in  the  narrow  sense)  the  in- 
scriptions which  linguistically  and  palaeographically  may  be 
conveniently  so  designated,  even  though  some  of  them  are 
strictly  Moabite,  Sidonian  or  Tyrian.  The  inscriptions  regard- 
ed as  typical  and  of  special  epigraphical  value  are  given  in  the 
following  account.  Of  those  entering  into  consideration  here, 
one  was  found  in  Moab,  one  in  Southern  Palestine,  three  in 
Sidon,  two  in  Tyre,  another  in  Cyprus,  one  in  Sardinia,  two  in 
Egypt,  and  several  in  Assyria.  The  use  of  the  alphabet  in 
these  widely  separated  regions  shows  that  in  the  course  of 
centuries,  this  special  type  of  the  Semitic  alphabet  had  been 
introduced  into  every  land  whither  Phoenician  colonists  had 
penetrated.  Since  the  Phoenicians  were  the  merchants  and 
common  carriers  on  the  Eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean 
from  the  earliest  period  of  which  history  gives  an  account,  we 
need  not  be  surprised  that  the  oldest  remains  of  the  Semitic 
alphabet  are  in  the  Phoenician  dialect  and  script. 

I.  The  Moabite  Stone. 

The  history  of  the  discovery  of  this  inscription  has  been 
narrated  so  often  that  a  brief  notice  here  will  suffice.^  The 
stone  contains  an  account  by  Mesha,  King  of  Moab,  of  the  sub- 
jection of  his  country  to  Israel  and  of  his  part  in  regaining  the 
disputed  territory.  It  is  a  graphic  narrative  yielding  much 
valuable  historical,  linguistic  and  archaeological  material.  The 
language  is  that  of  Moab,  a  dialect  akin  to  Phoenician  and  He- 
brew.^ The  inscription  serves  as  a  general  type  of  the  West- 
Semitic  group  of  the  tenth  century  B.  C.  The  character  of 
the  letters  is  seen  in  our  Chart  (col.  XII).  The  approximate 
date,  ascertained  by  a  comparison  of  the  statements  of  Mesha 

*  In  the  summer  of  1868  a  German  Missionary,  F.  Klein,  in  the  course  of  a 
journey  to  the  East  of  the  Jordan,  came  to  the  site  of  Dibon  (Is.  15:  2),  the 
ancient  capital  of  Moab.  The  Arabs  of  his  suite  pointed  out  near  his  encamp- 
ment a  block  of  black  basalt,  41  inches  high  and  21  wide,  with  an  inscription  of 
34  lines.  Prof.  Petermann,  of  Berlin,  who  happened  to  be  in  Jerusalem,  at  once 
took  measures  to  secure  the  stone  for  the  German  Royal  Museum.  At  the  same 
time  Ch.  Clermont-Ganneau,  a  Semitic  scholar,  and  attache  of  the  French  con- 
sulate in  Jerusalem  sought  to  gain  possession  of  the  treasure.  As  a  result  of  this 
competition,  the  Arabs  steadily  increased  the  amount  demanded  and  finally,  unable 
to  exact  an  exorbitant  price,  broke  the  stone  into  some  forty  fragments.  For- 
tunately, about  two-thirds  of  these  were  subsequently  recovered  and  pieced  to- 
gether. The  collected  parts  and  a  somewhat  imperfect  squeeze  taken  by  Cler- 
mont-Ganneau before  the  stone  was  broken  up,  are  now  exhibited  in  one  of  the 
rooms   of  the   Louvre,    Paris.     Despite  the   mutilation,  the   script   is   fairly   legible. 

"5  The  language  of  Moab  is  far  more  closely  akin  to  Hebrew  than  any  other 
Semitic  language  at  present  known  (though  it  may  be  conjectured  that  the  lan- 
guages spoken  by  Ammon  and  Edom  were  approximately  similar) :  in  fact,  it 
scarcely  differs  from  it  otherwise  than  dialectically   (Driver,   Samuel,  p.,  XCII). 


96  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

with  the  Biblical  records,  especially  2  K.  i  :  i ;  3 :  4-12,  is  890 
B.  C.  The  inscription  is  of  the  highest  value  as  a  point  of  de- 
parture for  determining  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  Semitic 
alphabet.  "The  considerable  length  of  the  inscription  supplies 
examples  of  all  but  one  of  the  letters  of  the  ancient  alphabet, 
while  the  repeated  occurrence  of  most  of  the  letters  renders  it 
easy  to  eliminate  mere  variant  or  accidental  forms,  and  thus  to 
determine  the  normal  alphabet  of  this  early  period"  (Taylor, 
Alphabet,  II,  206). 

Two  seals,  whose  nationality  is  determined  by  the  use  of 
the  word  Kemosh,  are  the  only  other  archaic  Moabite  inscrip- 
tions extant.® 

2.  The  Baal  Lebanon  Inscription. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  of  all  inscriptions  is  the  so- 
called  Baal  Lebanon,  found  at  Limassol,  Cyprus,  but  supposed 
by  some  to  belong  originally  to  a  temple  of  Baal  not  far  from 
Sidon.'^  The  inscription,  or  rather  inscriptions  ( for  there  are 
eight  fragments  of  thin  bronze)  formed  parts  of  bowls  or 
paternse,  used  for  ceremonial  purposes.  Six  of  these  fragments 
pieced  together  form  (a)  of  the  translation  below;  the  remain- 
ing pieces  (b)  and  (c)  owing  to  slight  differences  in  some  let- 
ters, as  aleph  and  lamed,  may  have  belonged  to  another  bowl.® 
On  palseographical  grounds  the  writing  must  be  pronounced  as 
old  as  the  Moabite  Stone,  and  perhaps  older.  This  conclusion 
follows  from  a  critical  examination  of  the  letters.  See  Chart 
col.  XI.  The  aleph,  beth,  daleth,  jod,  mem,  nun,  samekh,  ayin 
and  shin  are  practically  the  same  in  the  Moabite  and  the  Leb- 
anon, while  the  heth,  teth,  lamed  and  resh  of  this  inscription 
are  more  distinctly  lapidarian  and  archaic  than  in  the  Moabite. 
Only  zayin  and  taw  are  peculiar.     The  downward  stroke  of 

*  The  script  of  one  of  these  (described  by  Sachau  in  Aramaeische  Inschriften) 
is  almost  identical  with  that  of  the  Moabite  Stone  and  cannot  be  of  much  later 
date.  The  other  seal  is  several  centuries  later.  "The  Phoenician  inscriptions  may- 
be classified  chronologically  with  the  Moabite;  geographically  with  the  Hebrew" 
(Lidzbarski,    HB,   p.,    ii6), 

^  It  is  preserved  in  the  Cabinet  des  Antiques,  Bibliothcque  Nationale,  Paris. 
The  view  that  the  bowl  was  originally  dedicated  to  a  temple  in  Phoenicia,  and  af- 
terward taken  to  Cyprus,  is  regarded  by  Lidzbarski  as  improbable.  According  to 
Cooke,  "the  dedication  to  Baal  of  Lebanon  seems  at  first  sight  to  point  to  Phoe- 
nicia, or  Syria  as  the  original  home.  But  the  Phcenician  colony  in  Cyprus  may  well 
have  carried  with  them  the  cult  of  their  deity  from  the  mother-land;  or  if  the 
skn,  Governor,  came  from  Phcenicia,  he  may  have  wished  to  remember  the  god 
of  his  native  place,  just  as  the  Tyrian  colonists  at  Malta  made  their  dedications 
to  Melkarth,  the  Baal  of  Tyre"  (N.  S.  Inscrip.,  p.,   53). 

8  Cooke's  rendering  is:  "(a)  .  .  .  governor  of  Qarth-hadasht,  servant  of 
Hiram,  king  of  the  Sidonians,  gave  this  to  Baal  of  Lebanon,  his  lord,  of  choicest 
bronze,  (b)  .  .  .  .  T  B,  governor  of  Qarth-hadasht.  (c).  To  Baal  of  Lebanon, 
his  lord"    (op.   cit.,   p.,    52). 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  97 

zayin  is  perpendicular  in  the  Baal  Lebanon;  it  inclines  some- 
what to  the  left  in  the  Moabite.  The  taw  of  the  former  has 
the  form  of  the  Latin  cross  f  with  a  long  perpendicular  stroke, 
and  not  that  of  the  St.  Andrews,  X,  as  in  the  Moabite  Stone. 
It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  letters  Z  and  T  in  the  archaic  Greek 
alphabet  have  the  form  found  on  these  fragments.  On  these 
grounds  the  inscription  is  supposed  to  date  from  circa  i,ooo  B. 
C.  Euting  and  Lidzbarski,  high  European  authorities,  are  in- 
clined to  ascribe  a  greater  antiquity  to  it  than  to  the  Moabite 
Stone.® 

3.  Hassan-Bey-li. 

The  inscription  of  Hassan-Bey-li,  found  to  the  West  of 
Zinjirli,  contains  all  the  letters  except  gimel,  zayin,  heth,  teth, 
samekh  and  koph.  The  script  is  more  cursive  than  that  of  the 
Moabite  Stone,  but  bears  every  trace  of  being  one  of  the  oldest 
of  the  Phoenician  inscriptions.  Lidzbarski  says:  "Even  if  the 
meaning  of  'King  of  Asshur',  line  4,  and  of  'Kingdom  of 
Asshur',  l.me  6,  is  doubtful,  the  script  nevertheless  indicates  that 
the  inscription  is  not  much  later  than  the  Aramaic  inscriptions 
of  Zinjirli.  It  belongs  therefore  to  the  7-8  century  B.  C.  and 
is  one  of  the  oldest  of  the  Phoenician  inscriptions"  (HB,  p.,, 
118).     Chart,  XIII. 

4.  The  Nora  Inscriptions. 

Some  of  the  inscriptions  of  Nora  (Pula)  in  S.  Sardinia  are  of 
great  age,  the  script  resembling  that  of  the  Moabite  Stone.  Whether 
they  are  chronologically  of  the  same  period  is  a  disputed  matter,  turn- 
ing partly  on  the  question  when  the  Phoenicians  effected  settlements  in 
the  Western  Mediterranean,  and  in  Sardinia.  Under  any  view  it  is 
remarkable  that  Phoenician  inscriptions  of  essentially  the  same  char- 
acter as  the  Moabite  script  (though  probably  somewhat  later)  should 
be  found  so  far  westward.  This  is  a  further  proof  that  the  Phoenician 
alphabet  was  carried  to  the  West  at  a  much  earlier  date  than  generally 
supposed.     Chart,   XIV. 

5.  Abu  Simbel. 

Early  Phoenician  inscriptions  have  been  found  also  in  Egypt.  One 
of  the  oldest  was  inscribed  on  the  temple  at  Abu  Simbel,  and  owes  its 
origin,  as  the  accompanying  Greek  inscriptions  indicate,  to  mercenaries 
of  Psammeticus  I  or  II.  It  accordingly  dates  from  about  the  seventh 
century  B.  C.  The  script  is  more  developed  than  in  the  Hassan-Bey-li 
and  Nora  types ;  but  less  than  in  the  Sidonian.  See  Chart,  col.  XV, 
(also  Cis.,  I,  III,  112,  and  Lidz.  Ephem.  II,  5). 

■  Cooke  adopts  the  opposite  view:  "Internal  evidence  favors  a  later  date  than 
that  of  the  Zinjirli  inscriptions,  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C. ;  and  the 
character  of  the  writing  agrees  with  this"    {op.   cit.,  p.,  53). 

7 


98  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE, 

6.  The  Assyrian  Lion  Weights. 

We  now  turn  to  some  Phoenician  inscriptions  discovered  as  far 
East  as  Assyria.  Some  fifteen  lion  weights,  bearing  bilingual  inscrip- 
tions in  cuneiform  and  in  Phoenician  characters,  were  unearthed  by 
Layard  at  Nineveh.  Tlie  names  of  four  Assyrian  kings,  ruling  be- 
tween 745  and  681,  fix  the  date  of  the  several  inscriptions.  "Apart 
from  their  palseographic  value,  these  records  are  of  great  interest,  as 
showing  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  must  have  been  in  common  use 
at  Nineveh  for  commercial  purposes,  side  by  side  with  the  cuneiform 
as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C."  (Taylor,  Alphab.  I, 
218).  The  Phoenician  legend  on  the  eleventh  lion-v/eight,  which  reads 
maneh  melek,  "a  maneh  of  the  King",  and  is  supposed  to  refer  to  Shal- 
maneser  (737-722),  is  in  a  script  less  archaic  than  the  inscriptions  thus 
far  considered  but  evidently  older  than  those  of  Eshmunazar  and  Sidon 
considered  below.^°. 

7.  Ahydos. 

Under  this  head  may  be  classed  a  number  of  short  inscriptions 
from  the  walls  of  the  Temple  of  Osiris  at  Abydos  in  Egypt.  They  are 
assigned  by  Lidzbarski  to  the  5 — ^4th  century  B.  C.  (Ephem.  II). 
Chart,  XVI. 

8.  Byhlus. 

The  so-called  Byblus  inscription  records  the  dedication  of  a  bronze 
altar  and  a  golden  shrine  by  Yehaumelek,  king  of  Gebal,  the  modem 
Byblus.  It  is  assigned  to  the  5 — 4th  century  B.  C,  the  script  being  in  a 
transitional  stage  from  the  Nora  to  the  Eshmunazar  type.  The  fifteen 
lines  contain  the  whole  alphabet  except  teth.     Chart,  XVI. 

9.  Tahnith   and  Eshmunazar. 

Two  other  comparatively  early  Phoenician  inscriptions  may  be 
examined  together.  The  one  is  that  of  Tabnith,  king  of  Sidon,  in 
which  the  letters  have  the  characteristic  Phoenician  forms.  The  other 
is  the  long  funereal  inscription  of  Eshmunazar  of  Sidon. 

(i).  Tahnith.  ''The  inscription  was  found  at  Zidon  in  1887,  en- 
graved on  the  base  of  a  sarcophagus  of  black  basalt,  of  Egyptian  work- 
manship and  bearing  in  front  an  hieroglyphic  inscription,  designed  no 
doubt  originally  for  use  in  Egypt,  but  diverted  from  its  original  pur- 
pose and  taken  to  Phoenicia  in  order  to  receive  the  remains  of  a  Phoe- 
nician prince.  The  contents  of  the  hieroglyphic  inscription  bear  no 
relation  to  those  of  the  Phoenician  one"  (Driver,  Samuel,).  Lidz- 
"barski  assigns  this  and  the  following  inscription  to  the  fourth  century, 
B.  C."     See  Chart,  col.  XVII. 


1"  A  unique  interest  attaches  to  a  scarab  inscribed  in  Phoenician  letters  and 
discovered  in  the  foundation  of  the  palace  at  Khorsabad  built  by  Sargon,  722-705, 
the  conqueror  of  Samaria.  It  contains  simply  the  two  words  Ebhed  Baal',  "ser- 
vant of  Baal"  in  a  clear  Phoenician  script  and  is  assigned  by  Levy  to  the  eighth 
century  B.  C,  and  conjectured  by  Taylor  to  have  belonged  to  one  of  the  cap- 
tives of  the  Northern  Kingdom  of  Israel. 

"•  Driver  remarks  that  the  Tabnith  inscription  "may  serve  as  an  example  of 
the  style,  as  regards  characters  and  general  appearance,  in  which  the  autographs 
of  the  Old  Testament  must  have  been  written"  {op.  cit.,  p.,  XXVI).  This  may 
be  true  of  the  later  O.  T.  Scriptures,  but  certainly  the  earliest  writings,  as  the 
assumed  codes  J  and  E,  and  the  Pentateuch  generally,  as  well  as  Joshua  and 
Judges,  must  have  been  composed  in  a  far  more  archaic  script. 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  99 

(2).  Eshmunazar.  One  of  the  most  valuable  of  ancient  inscriptions 
is  the  magnificent  sarcophagus  of  Eshmunazar,  king  of  Zidon,  "now 
one  of  the  glories  of  the  Louvre".  With  the  exception  of  a  small  spot 
injured  by  the  spade  of  the  excavator,  it  is  so  well  preserved  that  every 
letters  is  clearly  distinguishable.  The  material  and  style  indicate  that 
it  was  brought  from  Egypt.  The  references  to  Dora,  Joppa  and  Sha- 
ron, as  parts  of  the  kingdom  of  Eshmunazar,  point  to  a  time  subsequent 
to  587,  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  monarchy.  Since  Eshmunazar  states  that 
he  reigned  at  Zidon,  the  inscription  must  be  older  than  330,  when 
Alexander  subdued  Phoenicia.  It  must  accordingly  be  placed  some- 
where toward  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.     Chart,  XVII. 

10.  Deductions. 

From  the  preceding  it  will  be  seen  (by  aid  of  the  Chart) 
that  the  Phoenician  script  (in  the  narrow  sense)  represents  a 
type  with  marked  characteristics.  The  Baal-Lebanon,  Nora, 
Tabnith  and  Eshmunazar  inscriptions  are  distinctively  of  this 
family.  Of  the  later  remains,  the  Hassan-Bey-li  approaches 
very  near  to  the  archaic  type.  The  only  letter  exhibiting  a  var- 
iation is  the  taw,  in  which  the  two  strokes  incline  as  in  the 
archetype,  but  the  one  to  the  left  is  considerably  longer.  Ar- 
chaic form.s  of  letters  are  also  found  on  seals  (see  Levy,  1-4,  7). 
For  the  remainder  of  the  old  Phcjenician  forms,  we  must  go  to 
the  extrem.e  West,  Sardinia,  Carthage  and  Malta.  In  the  Nora 
inscriptions  (CIS,  I,  144,  145)  there  is  scarcely  a  letter  which 
deviates  much  from  the  Moabite  form;  even  taw  has  yet  the 
old  shape.  Only  beth  in  145  has  lost  the  lower  projecting  ends ; 
the  tail  of  Samekh  in  the  last  line  of  145  approaches  the  later 
form. 

That  the  script  underwent  gradual  change  is  seen  in  the 
case  of  mem  and  shin,  each  of  which  is  a  test  of  the  age  of  a 
text.  Thus  by  reference  to  the  Chart  it  will  be  noticed  that 
mem  has  a  zigzag  form,  which,  while  tending  to  drop  one  arm, 
always  retains  the  tail.  By  the  time  of  the  Abu  Simbel  in- 
scription this  arm  has  disappeared  entirely.  Likewise  in  the 
case  of  shin,  one  of  the  slanting  lines  gradually  coalesces  with 
the  preceding  until  in  the  course  of  three  centuries  it  assumes 
a  form  approaching  the  square  shin.^^  Another  gradual  change 
takes  place  in  the  slant  of  the  letters.  Just  as  in  English  (writ- 
ten from  left  to  right)  a  slanting  letter,  as  b,  f,  1,  leans  to  the 
right,  so  in  the  Phoenician  and  Hebrew  (right  to  left)  the  ten- 
dency is  in  the  opposite  direction.    The  daleth,  he,  heth  and  jod 


"  "These  two  letters  one  may  regard  as  the  shibboleth  for  the  age  of  a 
Phoenician  inscription;  a  text  in  which  mem  and  shin  have  the  zigzag  form  is  to 
be  placed  in  a  period  prior  to  the  sixth  century  B.  C,  unless  there  are  weighty 
opposite  reasons"   (Lidz.  HB,  p.,    177)' 


lOO  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

of  the  old  script  came  to  incline  to  the  left.  The  letters  leaning 
originally  to  the  right,  as  kaph,  lamed,  mem,  etc.,  either  retained 
the  same  slant  or  tended  to  become  perpendicular.  As  a  result 
of  the  tendency  to  incline  to  the  left,  jod  and  zayin  assumed 
more  and  more  a  slanting  form  until  in  the  Middle  Phcenician 
and  Punic  they  are  practically  horizontal. 

No  other  radical  changes  occur  in  the  Phoenician  script. 
There  is,  however,  a  tendency  in  every  period  to  write  the  let- 
ters in  a  more  cursive  form,  so  that  the  stylus  may  rest  con- 
tinuously on  the  writing-material.  This  is  seen  in  samekh,  in 
which  the  one  perpendicular  and  the  three  horizontal  lines  grad- 
ually (i.  e.  during  the  lapse  of  seven  centuries)  assumed  in  the 
Punic  one  continuous,  but  curved  line.  This  tendency  issued  in 
the  cursive  script  found  in  all  alphabets,  but  least  in  the  Phoe- 
nician, for  it  died  out  too  soon.^^ 

The  letters  of  the  above  inscriptions,  doubtless  the  purest  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Semitic  alphabet,  differ  considerably  from  the  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic  inscriptions,  as  will  be  seen  presently.  If  now,  be- 
ginning with  the  Moabite  Stone  and  ending  with  the  Eshmunazar  in- 
scription, we  trace  the  rate  of  change  during  a  period  of  nearly  six 
centuries,  we  discover  that  the  development  was  exceedingly  slow.  We 
merely  remark  here  that  this  slow  evolution  of  the  Phoenician,  Aramaic 
and  Hebrew  types  of  script,  will  constitute  one  of  the  lines  of  proof 
in  support  of  the  proposition  that  according  to  the  facts  and  prin- 
ciples of  alphabetolog-y,  the  Semitic  alphabet,  i.  e.,  the  Proto-Phoenician, 
must  have  originated  many  centuries  earlier  than  held  by  the  Well- 
hausen  school  and  the  Panbabylonists, 

C.   THE   ARAMAIC  INSCRIPTIONS. 

With  the  decline  of  Phcenician  commerce  and  supremacy, 
the  Phoenician  language  also  declined,  and  the  Aramaic  grad- 
ually took  its  place  as  an  international  medium  of  communica- 
tion in  Mesopotamia  and  the  lands  bordering  on  Aram  (Syria). 
It  was  the  Aramaic,  and  not  the  Phoenician  alphabet  which  be- 
came the  parent  of  the  later  Hebrew,  Syriac  and  Arabic  scripts. 
It  accordingly  becomes  necessary  to  trace  the  development  by 
which  the  Aramaic  script  entered  the  field  and  finally  crowded 
out  the  more  archaic  forms  represented  in  the  Phoenician.^* 
The  view  that  the  Aramaeans  were  the  inventors  of  the  Semitic 


^^  The  development  finally  yielded  the  script  of  the  middle  or  Persian  period, 
and  furnishes  a  tolerably  correct  method  of  determining  the  age  of  an  inscription. 
Thus  the  frequency  and  the  length  of  the  lower  curve  are  generally  in  inverse 
proportion  to  the  antiquity  of  a  writing,  though  sometimes  local  and  personal  ele- 
ments  modify   the    rule. 

"  In  1 500-1 300  B.  C.  Assyrian  was  the  language  of  diplom.acy  in  Palestine, 
Egypt  and  Assyria;  but  Phoenician  was  the  language  of  commerce  along  the 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean  until  the  eighth  century  and  later. 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  lOI 

alphabet  is  disputed,  but  their  activity  in  its  spread  and  intro- 
duction is  admitted  by  all  scholars.  That  this  alphabet  was  in 
general  use  among  them  at  an  early  date  is  attested  by  the  fact 
that  we  have  Aramaic  inscriptions  of  the  ninth  and  eighth 
centuries  from  regions  as  widely  separated  as  Assyria,  and 
Asia  Minor,  and  of  the  eighth  and  seventh  centuries  from  Ara- 
bia and  Egypt.  Just  as  the  greater  part  of  the  Phoenician  in- 
scriptions were  found  outside  of  Phoenicia  and  indeed  beyond 
Semitic  territory,  so  the  majority  of  Aramaic  inscriptions  were 
discovered  in  Assyria,  Asia  Minor  and  other  non-Aramaic 
lands.  Only  those  of  Zinjirli,  Nerab,  and  a  few  other  places 
were  found  in  Aram  proper. 

We  give  a  sketch  of  the  chief  inscriptions,  beginning  with 
the  recent  great  discoveries  in  North  Syria,  which  have  added 
greatly  to  our  knowledge  of  the  early  Aramaic  script  and  of 
the  languages  and  literature  of  North  Syria  in  the  early  years 
of  the  first  millennium^  B.  C.  Especially  valuable  are  the 
Zakar  inscription,  800  B.  C,  and  the  so-called  Zinjirli  inscrip- 
tions of  the  eighth  and  seventh  centuries.  They  yield  much 
new  historical,  linguistic,  and  archaeological  material,  and  on 
account  of  their  antiquity  and  high  state  of  preservation  are 
prized  especially  by  the  scholar  in  search  of  inscriptional  and 
palseographical  data.  Their  discovery  has  done  for  Aramaic 
epigraphy  what  the  Moabite  Stone  did  for  Phoenician,  and  the 
Siloam  inscription  for  Hebrew  epigraphy. 
I.  The  Zakar  Inscription. 

In  1903  a  French  scholar,  Henri  Pognon,  discovered 
somewhere  in  Northern  Syria  an  old  Aramaic  inscription  of 
unusual  interest  and  value  in  this  connection.  The  monument 
was  erected  by  Zakar  king  of  Hamath  and  Laash  to  his  god 
El-Ur  in  recognition  of  the  defeat  of  his  enemies.^^  Expecting 
some  day  to  be  able  to  recover  the  missing  parts  and  to  publish 
the  whole  inscription,  Pognon  declines  at  present  to  divulge 
the  exact  locality  of  the  find.^*' 

1'  See  Pognon,  Inscriptions  Semitiques  de  la  Syrie,  de  la  Mesopotamie  et  de 
la  region  de  Mossoul,  Paris,  1907.  The  stele  consists  of  four  fragments  forming 
originally  the  lower  part  of  a  monolith  with  the  figure  of  a  man  in  relief.  The 
upper  fragment  shows  the  feet  and  the  lower  end  of  a  robe.  The  inscription 
begins  on  the  front  of  the  stele  and  continues  on  the  left  side.  On  the  right  side 
is  a  line  supposed  to  be  the  end  of  an  inscription.  The  writing  on  the  front 
contains  17,  that  on  the  left  side  29  lines,  in  a  fair  state  of  legibility.  Pognon 
calculates  that  the  upper  part  contained  at  least  30  lines  more.  The  portion  re- 
covered is  106  cm  high,  from  which  it  is  inferred  that  the  original  stele  had  a 
height   of   210  cm. 

"  Pognon  writes:  "Je  ne  peux  pas  songer  a  faire  des  fouilles  en  ce  moment, 
mais  je  compte  bien  en  faire  un  jour;    j'  ai,  d'  autre  part,   la  conviction   que,  si 


102  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

The  inscription  not  being  generally  accessible,  we  give  be- 
low a  translation  of  the  text  as  edited  by  Lidzbarski,  with  con- 
jectural restoration  of  a  few  lacunae.^'  Zakar  and  his  kingdom 
were  wholly  unknown  until  revealed  by  this  monolith,  which 
accordingly  has  priceless  value  historically  and  palseographi- 
cally.  He  appears  to  have  been  king  of  Hazrak,  probably  to 
be  identified  with  the  Hadrach  of  Zech.  9:1,  which  is  associated 
with  Damascus  ''Zakar  styles  himself  king  of  Hamath  and 
Laash;  the  former  is  the  important  city  in  northern  central 
Syria,  the  site  of  the  other  city  being  as  yet  uncertain.  His 
chief  enemy  is  Bar-hadad  son  of  Hazael,  king  of  Aram,  that  is 

of  Damascus The  Old   Testament   makes    Jehoash, 

king  of  Israel,  the  liberator  of  his  nation  from  the  yoke  of 
Damascus  (2  K.  13:  25).  If  we  may  accept  as  correct  the 
Biblical  statement  that  his  son  Jeroboam  II,  who  died  in  745, 
reigned  41  years  (14:  23)  this  loss  to  the  empire  of  Damascus 

must  have  taken  place  about  800 The  approximate 

date  of  800  mav  then  be  assigned  to  the  inscription''  (Prof.  J. 
A.  Montgomery,  Bib.  World,  XXXIII,  p..  82).  Chart,  col. 
XVIII. 

Prof.  S.  R.  Driver  in  a  lengthy  review  reaches  the  conclu- 
sion :  "The  date  of  the  inscription  must  be  about  800  B.  C. ;  it 
is  consequently  the  oldest  Aramaic  inscription  at  present  known 
and  only  about  50  years  later  than  the  inscription  of  Mesha  on 
the  Moabite  Stone"  (Expositor,  V).  Halevy  also  assigns  it  to 
800.^^  Nearly  all  German  specialists  assign  it  to  the  same 
period. 

je  commettait  1'  immense  mala'dresse  de  dire  ovi  j'  ai  decouvert  la  stele,  de  Zakir, 
il  se  trouverait  certainement  quelqu'un  qui  irait  immediatement  faire  des  fouilles, 
decouvrirait  sans  aucune  difficulte  les  fragments  qui  manquent,  et  s'empresseraait 
de  publier  complete  1'  inscription  qu'  a  mon  grand  regret  je  ne  peux  publier 
qu'en  partie". 

1^  Col.  I.  Line  i.  The  stele  which  Zakar  king  of  Hamath  and  Laash  erected 
to  El-Ur  in  the  place  of  these.  2.  Zakar,  king  of  Hamath  and  Laash,  a  man  lowly 
was  I.  So  elevated  me  3.  the  Lord  of  Heaven  and  stood  by  me;  and  the  Lord 
of  Heaven  placed  me  as  king  over   Hazrik.     4.  Bar-hadad,  son  of  Hazael,  king  of 

Aram,  united   against   me 5.       s  .  .  .   teen  kings.     These   were   Bar-hadad 

and  his  army,  and  BRGSH  and  his  army.  6.  the  king  of  Kue  and  his  army,  and 
the  king  of  Umk  and  his  army,  and  the  king  of  Gurg  um  7.  and  his  army,  and 
the  king  of  Samal  and  his  army,  and  the  king  of  Miliz  and  his  army.  .  8.  .  .  . 
....  seven  kings  9.  and  their  armies.  All  these  kings  laid  siege  against  Haz- 
rak, 10.  And  they  built  a  wall  higher  than  the  wall  of  Hazrak  and  dug  a  trench 
deeper  than  its  trench.  .  11.  Then  I  raised  my  hands  to  the  Lord  of  Heaven 
and  the  Lord  of  Heaven  heard  me.  Answered  me  12  the  Lord  of  Heaven  through 
seers  and  astrologers;  and  said  to  me  13  the  Lord  of  Heaven:  Fear  not,  for  I 
have  appointed  thee  king  and  will  stand  by  thee,  14  and  will  deliver  thee  from 
all  these  kings  who  15  have  brought  siege  against  thee;  said  to  me  the  Lord 
of  Heaven  I  will  destroy  16  all  these  kings  who  have  laid  siege  against  thee 
17  and  this  wall  which  they  have  raised 18 (Ephem.   Ill,   3). 

"  "Une  Inscription  de  la  Syrie  moyenne,  qui  par  son  age  et  sa  haute  im- 
portance historique,  se  place  immediatement  apres  la  celebre  inscription  de  Mesha" 
(Rev.  Sent.,  Avril,  1908). 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  IO3 

This  inscription,  written  in  Aramaic  with  a  strong  admix- 
ture of  Hebrew,  throws  new  light  on  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic 
of  that  day.  ''When  the  need  arose  among  the  Aramaeans  to 
make  written  records,  they  turned  to  the  people  who  hitherto 
had  written  only  in  Canaanitish.  The  first  records  were  ob- 
viously composed  in  the  language  of  the  scribes,  but  the  con- 
querors would  soon  prefer  to  use  their  native  tongue.  Natur- 
ally a  new  literary  language  could  not  be  formed  in  a  day; 
something  too  depended  on  the  skill  of  the  scribe.  The  oldest 
monuments  from  northern  Syria  exhibit  such  attempts.  .  .  . 
In  the  recently  published  inscription,  it  is  religious  expressions 
which  bear  a  Canaanitish,  indeed  actually  a  Hebraistic,  char- 
acter. Only  here  do  we  find  the  very  characteristic  waw  con- 
versive.  Perhaps  the  composer  was  a  priest  at  one  of  the  Ca- 
naanite  shrines  before  whose  mind  expressions  from  hymns  or 
religiously  colored  narratives  floated"  (Lidz.  Ephem.  IH,  p., 
3).  Whether  or  not  Lidzbarski's  conclusions  are  in  all  respects 
correct,  it  is  clear  that  the  stele  compels  us  to  carry  back  the  lit- 
erary use  of  the  Canaanite  alphabet  several  centuries  further 
than  hitherto  allowed  by  the  Panbabylonists. 

That  which  concerns  us  especially  in  this  connection  is  the  epi- 
graphic  value.  All  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  alphabet 
occur  except  teth;  from  the  form  of  the  letters  we  can  gain  a  tolerably- 
correct  idea  of  the  Aramaic  script  in  800.  A  comparison  of  the  letters 
with  the  Moabite  Stone  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Hadad  inscription  on 
the  other  shows  a  general  resemblance,  with  some  marked  peculiarities. 
Thus  the  frequently  recurring  aleph,  he,  waw,  kaph,  lamed,  mem, 
ts'adhe,  shin  and  taw  resemble  the  Hadad  letters ;  but  the  gimel,  daleth, 
zayin,  samekh,  and  koph  exhibit  departures  from  the  normal  forms. 
Especially  noteworthy  is  the  short  perpendicular  line  separating 
words,  somewhat  as  in  the  Moabite  Stone.  Upon  the  whole,  epigraph- 
ically  viewed,  the  monolith  furnishes  undoubted  proof  that  the  so- 
called  Phoenician  alphabet  was  in  full  bloom  in  a  remote  district  of 
Syria  in  the  ninth  century  B.  C.  How  long  previously  it  was  intro- 
duced is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  Some  considerable  time,  perhaps  a 
century  or  two,  must  have  elapsed  before  the  new  script  could  have 
found  such  general  currency  among  the  Aramaeans,  Both  the  lan- 
guage and  the  forms  of  the  letters  indicate  that  writing  in  this  script 
had  long  been  in  use  in  Aram  and,  though  our  ignorance  of  the  exact 
locality  of  the  origin  of  the  inscription  invites  caution,  we  may  infer 
that  a  knowledge  of  the  Phoenician  script  was  widespread  in  the  North 
of  Syria,  reaching  even  to  a  hitherto  utterly  unknown  and  forgotten 
kingdom. 

All  this  is  significant  and  shows  that  in  this  early  period,  more 
people  could  read  and  write  than  has  heretofore  been  supposed.  The 
practical  question  for  the  Old  Testament  student  is  whether  with  the 
almost  universal  knowledge  of  writing  in  _  the  distant  past,  the 
Hebrews  were  the  only  people  lacking  the  wit,   ambition  and   oppor- 


I04  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

timity  to  acquire  and  employ  the  art.  As  Lidzbarski  intimates  above, 
the  Canaanite,  i.  e.  the  Phoenician  language  and  script  must  have  been 
widely  current  in  the  North  of  Syria  in  early  times. 

2.  The  Hadad  Inscription. 

Another  Aramaic  inscription  of  the  same  or  perhaps  a 
somewhat  later  date  than  the  preceding  receives  its  name  from 
the  god  Hadad,  to  whom  it  was  dedicated  by  Panammu  I  of 
Jaudi.  It  is  the  earliest  and  most  important  of  the  so-called 
Zinjirli  inscriptions  and  is  in  a  good  state  of  preservation  with 
the  exception  of  three  small  erasures  across  a  part  of  the  stone. 
The  letters  are  clear-cut,  distinct  and  regularly  formed,  though 
being  in  relief  they  are  reproduced  with  difficulty  in  our  Chart, 
col.  XIX.  "The  writing  belongs  to  the  archaic  type  repre- 
sented by  the  Moabite  Stone"  (Cooke,  op.  cit.,  p.,  163).  As 
shown  by  the  archaic  style  of  the  letters  and  contemporary  ref- 
erences, the  colossal  statue  dates  from  about  775  B.  C}^ 

3.  The  Panammu  Inscription. 

The  second  of  the  Zinjirli  inscriptions,  found  in  1888,  is 
preserved  in  the  Berlin  Museum.  It  dates  from  the  time  of 
Tiglath-Pileser  II  (745-27).  It  consists  of  23  lines,  fairly 
legible  for  the  most  part,  but  the  last  few  lines  are  **so  much 
injured  that  the  exact  sense  cannot  be  recovered"  (Cooke,  op. 
cit.,  180).^^  Lidzbarski  deplores  that  he  was  unable  to  pro- 
cure a  satisfactory  reproduction;  but  by  the  aid  of  his  plate 
we  are  enabled  to  trace  the  letters  in  their  essential  features, 
which  confirm  the  evidence  from  other  sources.  Sayce,  speak- 
ing of  this  and  the  preceding  stele,  says :  "The  strange  and 
unexpected  fact  which  they  disclose  is  that  the  Aramaic  lan- 

"  The  inscription,  consisting  of  34  lines  (the  same  as  the  Moabite)  was  found 
in  1890  near  Zinjirli,  a  town  in  North  Syria,  and  is  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum. 
The  first  part  runs  thus:    "I  am  Panammu,  son  of  QRL,  king  of  Jaudi,  who  have 

set  up  this  statue  to  Hadad  in  my  2.  There  stood  by  me  the  god  (?)   Hadad 

and  El  and  Reshef  and  Rekub-el  and  Shamash.     And  Hadad  and  El  and  Rekub-el 

and   Shamash  gave  into  my  hand  the  sceptre  of  ;     and   Reshuf  stood  by  me: 

and  whatsoever  I  take  in  hand and  whatsoever  I   ask  of  the  gods  they 

give   me,   etc." 

Of  this  inscription  and  the  next  one  Hommel  says  in  a  recent  work:  "Auch 
die  beiden  grossen  bei  Zendschirli  an  der  syrisch-cilischischen  Grenze,  also  am 
Aeussersten  Nordwesten  des  semitischen  Gebietes,  muessen  eher  als  altkanaanaei- 
sche  Sprachdenkmaeler  mit  aramaeischer  Beimischung  bezeichnet  werden — zu- 
gleich  ein  Beweis  dafuer,  wie  zu  Anfang  des  i.  vorchristlichen  Jahrtausends  nach 
Zurueckdraengung  des  hcthitisch-alarodischen  Volkselements  in  ganz  Palaestina 
und  Syrien  kanaanaeische  Sprache  und  Schrift  geherrscht  hat"  (Grundr.  d.  Geog. 
u.   Gesch.,    159). 

20  The  first  few  lines  read:  "This  statue  Bar-rekub  placed  to  his  father  Pan- 
ammu, son  of  Bar-sur,  king  of  Jaudi  .  .  .  year  my  father  Panammu  ...  2. 
his  father;  the  gods  of  Jaudi  delivered  him  from  his  destruction.  There  was  a 
conspiracy  in  his  father's  house,  and  the  god  Hadad  rose  ...  his  seat  .  .  . 
over   .    .    .   destruction  etc." 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  IO5 

guage  of  Samala  approached  the  Hebrew  in  many  respects. 
While  the  Hebrew  ben,  son,  is  replaced  by  the  Aramaic  bar, 
the  grammatical  forms  and  particles  are  in  several  cases  dis- 
tinctively Hebrew.  So  also  many  of  the  words  which  are  used 
in  the  text.  Even  more  striking  is  the  fact  that  the  spelling 
of  certain  proper  names  is  the  same  as  it  is  in  the  present  text 
of  our  Hebrew  Bibles.  As  in  the  Old  Testament,  so  in  the 
inscriptions  of  Samala  the  name  of  Assyria  is  written  with  the 
vowel  u  In  the  second  syllable The  fact  gives  us  in- 
creased confidence  in  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Books  of 
Kings,  as  it  indicates  that  the  information  contained  in  them 
was  faithfully  copied  from,  written  documents;  it  also  proves 
that  a  dialect  more  akin  to  Hebrew  than  to  the  later  Aramaic 
was  spoken  in  Northern  Syria  in  the  eighth  century  before 
our  era"  (Higher  Crit.  &  Mon.,  196).     See  Chart,  col.  XX. 

4.  Th&  Bar-Rekuh  Inscription. 

Another  old  inscription  is  that  erected  by  Bar-Rekub  to 
his  father  Panummu  II  of  Samal.  It  dates  from  the  eighth 
century, 2^  as  shown  from  contemporary  historical  data  and  the 
character  of  the  letters,  which  are  a  later  type  of  the  archaic 
Semitic  script.  Chart,  col.  XXI.  From  these  and  similar  types 
it  is  clear  that  a  general  change  took  place  in  the  letters,  some 
forms  becoming  simpler  and  more  rounded,  others  more  open 
and  regular.  'This  inscription  belongs,  not  to  a  statue  [like 
the  two  preceding]  but  to  a  building  —  the  new  palace  built 
by  Bar-Rekub.  On  the  left  side  of  the  inscription  is  a  figure 
of  the  king  in  Assyrian  style  carved  in  relief,  holding  a  lotus 
flower  in  his  hand"  (Cooke,  op.  cit.).  Lidzbarski  reproduces 
additional  Zinjirli  inscriptions  of  nearly  the  same  date,  or  a 
little  later,  as  shown  by  the  forms  of  the  letters  and  the  general 
style  of  art.^^ 


21  Found  in  1891,  now  in  the  Imperial  Museum,  Constantinople.  Consists  of 
20  lines,  in  an  almost  perfect  state  of  preservation.  We  give  a  few  lines;  as  ren- 
dered by  Cooke:  "I  am  Bar-Rekub,  son  of  Panammu,  king  of  Samal,  servant  of 
Tiglath-pileser  lord  of  the  four  parts  of  the  earth.  For  the  righteousness  of  my 
father  and  for  my  own  righteousness  my  lord  Rekub-el  and  my  lord  Tiglath-pile- 
ser made  me  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  my  father,      etc." 

"  The  question  has  recently  arisen  whether  the  language  of  the  Zinjirli  in- 
scriptions is  really  Aramaic.  Halevy  maintains  that  the  Hadad  and  Panammu  in- 
scriptions are  not  in  the  Aramaic,  but  in  a  Cannanitish  dialect,  perhaps  the  Hittite 
(Nouvel  Examen  des  inscriptions  de  Zinjirli.  Rev.  sent.  VII).  His  chief  argu- 
ment is  the  absence  of  distinctively  Aramaic  forms.  Lidz.  also  expresses  doubt, 
saying,  "Noch  vor  dem  Erscheinen  dieser  Arbeit  .  .  .  bin  ich  zu  der  Ueber- 
zeugung  gelangt  dass  Had.  und  Pan.  in  einer  anderen  Sprache  abgefasst  sind,  als 
die  kleineren  Inschriften"  {,Eph.  I,  57).  Whether  the  language  is  in  fact  Hittite, 
Lidz.  leaves  to  the  "Chetitologen". 


ICX)  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

5.  Nerab. 

The  two  so-called  Nerab  inscriptions  were  discovered  in  1891  at 
Nerab,  a  small  town  S.  E.  of  Aleppo.  They  constitute  a  part  of  the 
treasures  of  the  Louvre.  "They  accompany  the  bas-reliefs  of  two 
priests  of  the  local  sanctuary,  finely  executed  in  the  Assyrian  manner 
and  singularly  well  preserved.  .  .  The  writing  is  net  so  archaic  and 
rigid  as  that  upon  Zinjirli  inscriptions,  while  it  belongs  to  an  earlier 
stage  than  that  of  the  inscriptions  from  Teima."  (Cooke,  op.  cit). 
Lidzbarski  assigns  them  to  the  seventh  century. 

6.  Lion   Weight  of  Abydos. 

This  inscription  underneath  a  lion-weight  found  in  i860  at  Abydos 
on  the  Hellespont  belongs  to  the  6 — 5th  century  as  indicated  by  the 
style  of  the  letters.  "At  this  period  Asia  Minor  was  subject  to  Persian 
rule,  and  the  Persian  satraps  used  Aramaic  in  intercourse  with  the  sub- 
ject races  in  the  West  of  the  Empire.  This  was  a  trade-weight  offi- 
cially certified  to  be  of  full  standard"   (Cooke). 

7.  Lamas  Inscription. 

This  inscription,  consisting  of  six  lines,  is  carved  upon  a  rock 
S.  E.  of  Saraidan  in  the  Valley  of  the  Lamas  in  S.  E.  Cilicia.  Both 
Lidzbarski  and  Cooke  assign  it  to  the  5 — 4th  century.  The  letters 
are  of  a  later  style  than  the  preceding.  That  Aramaeans  should  have 
penetrated  this  remote  and  obscure  district  in  this  early  period  is  an- 
other proof  of  the  wide  extent  of  Semitic  and  even  Aramaic  civiliza- 
tion. 

If  additional  proof  were  required  to  show  the  extensive  use  of  the 
Aramaic  script  in  the  9 — 5th  century,  it  could  be  adduced  in  numer- 
ous  examples  of  writing  on  seals,   weights  and   votive  offerings. 

8.  The  Teima  Stones. 

The  first  and  longest  of  the  Teima  inscriptions  was  found  in 
1880.^'  It  consisted  of  2$  lines,  of  which  less  than  two-thirds  are 
pTeser\-ed ;  it  is  dated  "in  the  22nd  year",  but  the  nam^e  of  the  king 
has  disappeared.  It  describes  the  revenues  necessary  to  support  a 
newly  introduced  cult.  The  letters  are  of  a  transitional  type,  sorne 
as  zayin,  jod  and  tsadhe  exhibiting  archaic  forms,  others,  as  teth,  ayin 
and  resh  being  late.  Carved  in  relief  the  letters  are  somewhat  difficult 
to  reproduce  on  our  chart,  col.  XXII.  ^'The  Teima  Stone  is  generally 
believed   to  date   from  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  although   some 

would  place  it  early  in  the  sixth  century The  stone  is  of 

interest  as  an  early  example  of  Aramaic  epigraphy"  (Goodspeed, 
op.  cit.). 

The  second  Teima  inscription  is  much  shorter,  but  it  exhibits  the 
same  general  style.  The  characters  belong  to  a  period  in  the  middle 
stage  of  Aramaic  writing.  They  are  almost  all  of  the  same  size  and  writ- 


23  While  few  Semitic  inscriptions  surpass  the  Teima  Stone  in  interest  and 
importance,  it  is  one  of  the  least  known  of  the  great  inscriptions.  Teima  in  North 
Arabia  is  generally  identified  with  the  Tema  of  Job  6:  19.  The  place  must  have 
been  famous  in  antiquity,  doubtless  as  a  caravan  center  between  Petra,  Gerra 
and  Sheba,  for  it  is  often  mentioned  by  Old  Testament  writers;  cf.  Gen.  25:  15; 
I  Chron.  i:  30;  Isa.  21:  14;  Jer.  25 :  22  (E.  G.  Goodspeed,  Bib.  World, 
XXXIII,  424). 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  lO/ 

ten  as  it  were  between  straight  lines,  like  CIS,  II,  72  from  Chaldea. — 
"The  Zayin  and  jod  are  archaic  in  form,  Koph  is  almost  Nabataean, 
Ayin  is  shaped  like  a  V,  and  aleph  has  the  shape  of  +,  mem  is  writ- 
ten with  the  two  down  strokes  nearly  equal  in  length"  (Cooke,  op.  cit.). 

9.  Characteristics  of  Aramaic  Script. 

As  seen  from^  a  comparison  of  forms  in  the  Chart,  the 
script  of  the  Zakar  inscription  is  in  general  identical  with  that 
of  the  Moabite  Stone.  With  some  exceptions  the  same  is  true 
of  the  two  oldest  Znjirli  inscriptions.  Minor  differences  as 
compared  with  the  Moabite  occur :  as  daleth  with  the  more  up- 
right form  and  approach  to  resh ;  waw,  with  a  square  head ; 
teth  with  its  more  oblong  shape;  kaph,  mem,  nun,  and  taw, 
which  inchne  more  to  the  right,  whereas  samekh,  tsadhe,  resh, 
more  to  the  left.  By  the  time  of  the  Teima  stones,  the  alphabet 
has  assumed  still  more  characteristic  forms.  The  zayin,  as  in 
the  Phoenician,  has  approached  very  nearly  the  form  of  z;  in 
samekh,  both  the  perpendicular  and  cross-lines  have  become 
decidedly  curved;  and  in  koph  the  left  circle  has  taken  the 
form  of  a  mere  point.  Strangely  enough,  the  teth  is  round  as 
in  the  Moabite,  but  in  the  Bar-Rekub  has  only  a  stroke  in  the 
middle.  The  exact  interval  between  the  Zakar  stele  and  the 
monuments  of  Nerab  is  not  known;  but  the  changes  in  the 
script  are  peculiar  rather  than  numerous.  The  heth,  which 
has  still  three  cross-marks  in  Zinjirli  has  usually  only  one  in 
Nerab.  In  kaph  the  angle  has  become  a  wedge,  and  zayin  has 
turned  one-fourth  around.  On  the  other  hand,  waw  has  again 
the  round  head;  and  koph  the  whole  circle.  By  the  time  of 
the  Teima  inscriptions  the  Aramaic  script  developed  a  marked 
character  of  its  own.  This  transition  from  the  archaic  to  the 
middle  epoch  is  exhibited  step  by  step  in  the  Chart.  Some  of 
the  characters  have  the  same  development  as  in  the  Phoenician 
alphabet. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  Ara- 
maic script  is  not  difficult  to  determine.  It  consists  in  the  ten- 
dency to  an  opening  of  the  loops  in  the  closed  letters.  This  is 
quite  marked  in  beth,  daleth,  samekh,  ayin,  koph  and  resh, 
compared  with  the  Phoenician  and  the  archaic  Hebrew  script. 
From  the  earliest  of  the  inscriptions,  the  Zakar  and  Hadad  to 
those  of  the  middle  period,  Nerab  and  Bar-Rekub,  to  those  of 
Teima,  the  closed  loop  tends  to  open  and  become  first  curved 
and  finally  almost  horizontal  lines.  The  letters  originally  hav- 
ing bars,  as  he,  waw,  heth,  and  taw  gradually  modify  or  even 
lose  them   altogether,   until  the  distinctively  archaic  Aramaic 


I08  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

type  prepares  the  way  by  a  further  differentiation  for  the  later 
square  forms,  adopted  in  the  later  Hebrew. 

D.    ARCHAIC    HEBREW    INSCRIPTIONS. 

Hebrew  inscriptions  covering  a  period  of  a  thousand  years 
are  scattered  over  every  part  of  the  East.  But  very  ancient 
inscriptions  are  with  few  exceptions  confined  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean region.  Archaic  Hebrew  inscriptions  have  thus  far 
been  found  only  in  Palestine.^'*  Unfortunately  their  number  is 
small,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  Siloam,  Gezer,  Jeroboam 
and  Samaria  inscriptions  they  possess  inferior  palseographical 
value.  A  few  seals  from  the  eighth,  and  some  fragments  of 
inscriptions  from  the  seventh  and  sixth  centuries,  practically 
complete  the  list.  The  material  at  command  is,  however,  suf- 
ficient to  enable  us  to  trace  the  development  of  the  Hebrew 
script  from  the  ninth  century  onward.  From  the  position  thus 
gained  we  may  infer  what  its  character  was  in  the  immediately 
preceding  centuries. 

I.  The  Siloam  Inscription. 

This  most  precious  and  famous  of  Hebrew  inscriptions  has 
value  for  us  here  chiefly  on  chronological  and  palaeographical 
grounds.  It  shows  that  at  an  early  period  the  Phoenician 
script  was  well  known  to  common  workmen  and  that  it  had 
been  probably  long  employed  for  literary  purposes  among  the 
Hebrews.  It  was  discovered  by  accident  in  1880  on  the  wall 
of  the  Pool  of  Siloam.  Two  passages  in  the  Old  Testament 
are  regarded  as  referring  to  this  pool  and  tunnel.  Thus  in  2  C. 
32:  30:  "This  same  Hezekiah  also  stopped  the  upper  spring 
of  the  waters  of  Gihon  and  brought  them  straight  down  on  the 
West  side  of  the  city  of  David" ;  and  2  K.  20 :  20 :  "Now  the 
rest  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah  and  all  his  might  and  how  he  made 
the  pool  and  the  conduit,  and  brought  water  into  the  city,  are 

2*  The  fewness  of  Hebrew  inscriptions  is  variously  explained.  Until  within 
a  recent  period  no  systematic  effort  was  made  to  explore  and  excavate  the  hills 
of  Palestine.  Recently  the  English  Palestine  Exploration  Society  and  the  Ger- 
man Palaestina  Verein  have  prosecuted  the  work  vigorously,  and  have  already 
brought  to  light  a  sufficient  number  of  inscriptions  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that 
others  of  great  value  still  remain  hidden.  Then  again,  it  is  probable  that  the 
bulk  of  Hebrew  literature  of  the  classic  period  was  written  upon  papyrus  or 
membranes,  which  naturally  perished  centuries  ago.  Nevertheless  "excavation 
in  Palestine  itself  and  in  adjacent  lands  has  revealed  an  amount  of  culture  which 
could  never  have  been  imagined;  continued  research  among  Semites,  whether  in 
Arabia,  Palestine,  Syria  or  Mesopotamia  has  brought  to  light  features  of  cult  and 
custom  identical  with,  analogous  to  or  illustrative  of  ancient  conditions  and  life. 
....  The  comparatively  small  extent  of  excavation  in  Palestine  has  not  yet 
succeeded  in  unearthing  tlTose  native  records  with  definite  chronological  data, 
which,  it  is  hoped,  will  some  day  be  forthcoming"  (S.  A.  Cooke,  Pal.  Ex.  Fund, 
1907). 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  lOQ 

they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of 
Israel?"-^  It  is  generally  held  that  the  conduit  and  the  in- 
scription were  executed  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (726  B.  C). 
Others  quoting  from  Is.  8 :  6,  ''the  waters  of  Shiloah  that  flow 
gently",  a  prophecy  dating  from  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  assign  both 
tunnel  and  inscription  to  an  earlier  period  about  750  B.  C.^® 

That  which  concerns  us  especially  is  the  form  of  the  let- 
ters and  their  relation  to  the  Phoenician  and  Aramaic  scripts. 
The  resemblance  to  the  characters  on  the  Moabite  Stone  is  quite 
close  in  gimel,  kaph,  lamicd,  koph  and  taw,  all  of  which  stand 
closer  to  the  Moabite  than  to  the  Sidonian  and  Tyrian.  The 
inscription  presents  the  daleth  with  a  continuous  line  under- 
neath as  in  the  Tyrian,  though  it  differs  considerably  from  both 
the  Moabite  and  the  Zinjirli  in  the  case  of  waw,  heth,  mem  and 
nun.  In  general  the  relation  is  closer  to  the  Moabite  than  to 
the  Hadad  and  the  Middle  Phoenician. 

2.  The  Gezer  Calendar  Tablet.''' 

In  1908  Prof.  R.  A.  S.  Macalister,  an  English  scholar,  who 
for  some  years  conducted  excavations  in  Palestine,  discovered 
at  Gezer,  some  20  miles  to  the  West  of  Jerusalem,  a  small  lime- 
stone tablet  containing  writing  in  archaic  Hebrew  characters 
and  easily  ranking  as  the  oldest  of  extant  Hebrew  inscriptions. 
The  name  by  which  it  is  generally  known  is  suggested  by  the 

25  The  pool  is  at  the  extreme  South  of  the  Eastern  hill  of  Jerusalem  (on  the 
North  of  which  the  Temple  stood)  at  the  entrance  to  the  Tyropoean  Valley;  anda 
tunnel  cut  through  the  rock  from  the  Virgin  Spring  (the  one  natural  spring  in 
Jerusalem)  situated  some  distance  above  it  on  the  East  side  of  the  same  hill,  leads 
down  to  it  and  supplies  it  with  water.  The  tunnel  is  circuitous,  measuring  1708 
feet  though  the  distance  in  a  straight  line  is  considerably  less.  The  inscription 
was  first  observed  by  a  pupil  of  architect  Schick,  who,  while  wading  in  the  pool 
with  a  lighted  candle,  observed  what  appeared  to  be  characters  engraved  on  the 
rock.  Ultimately  in  1881  a  gymsum  cast  was  obtained  by  Dr.  Guthe,  who  pub- 
lished a  photograph  with  accompanying  description  in  1882,  which  has  since  been 
often  reproduced.  A  portion  of  three  lines  in  the  inscription  has  been  destroyed 
through  the  wearing  away  of  the  rock;  but  the  general  sense  is  quite  clear" 
(Driver,  Samuel  XV).  Following  is  a  translation:  "The  boring  through  and 
this  was  the  manner  of  the  boring  through:  whilst  yet  ....  the  pick,  each 
towards  his  fellow,  and  whilst  yet  there  were  three  cubits  to  be  bored  through, 
there  was   heard  the   voice   of  each   calling   to   his   fellow,    for  there  was   a   split   in 

the    rock  on   the   right    hand And   on  the    day   of    the    boring  through  the 

miners  struck,  each  to  meet  his  fellow,  pick  upon  pick;  and  the  waters  flowed 
from  the  source  of  the  pool  for  two  hundred  and  a  thousand  cubits  ;^^  and  a  hun- 
dred cubits   was  the  height   of  the   rock  above   the  head  of  the   miners". 

2«  "There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  work  was  carried  on  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah.  The  character  of  the  writing  points  to  the  same  period.  It  belongs 
to  the  archaic  type  represented  on  the  Moabite  Stone;  but  in  general  form  it  is 
lighter  and  more  flowing  than  the  Moabite,  and  some  letters,  as  aleph,  daleth,  heth, 
and  tsadhe  are  considerably  different.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  final  vowels 
are  represented  by  consonants;  but  within  the  word  the  vowel-letter  is  not 
written"   (Cooke,   op.  cit.)     See  chart,   col   XXVI. 

27  The  value  of  this  lately  discovered  inscription  as  a  proof  of  the  early  and 
common  use  of  the  Semitic  script  among  the  Hebrews  justifies  a  full  considera- 
tion here. 


no  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

frequent  occurrence  of  the  word  yerach  (month).  Macalister 
describes  ^.t  as  follows :  "It  is  the  upper  fragment  of  a  tablet  of 
limestone,  four  and  one-half  inches  high,  two  and  three-fourths 
inches  across  and  five-eighth  inches  thick.  The  lower  part  is 
broken  off  by  an  oblique  fracture  and  lost;  the  fracture  passes 
through  a  square  hole,  apparently  meant  for  a  peg  by  which 
the  stone  was  affixed  to  a  wall.  The  reverse  side  of  the  tablet, 
except  for  one  or  two  meaningless  and  perhaps  accidental  tool- 
marks,  is  plain,  as  is  also  the  right  hand  edge.  The  left  hand 
edge  is  covered  with  a  fret  of  diagonal  lines,  five  or  six  to  the 
inch"  (Pal.  Ex.  Fund,  ipog).  The  tablet  contains  seven  lines 
and  is  fairly  well  preserved.  See  Chart,  col.  XXV.  A  few 
letters  are  in  dispute,  but  the  general  meaning  is  clear.  The 
text  twice  contains  marks  of  separation  of  words  in  the  first  two 
lines,  somewhat  as  in  the  Moabite  Stone.^®  It  is  sometimes 
called  the  Gezer  Stone,  but  as  this  phrase  is  liable  to  be  con- 
fused with  two  Gezer  cuneiform  inscriptions,  lately  discovered, 
it  is  better  to  employ  some  such  term  as  the  above. ^^ 

We  are  more  directly  interested  in  the  date  of  the  tablet. 
Hebrew  archaeologists  and  palaeographers,  as  Lidzbarski,  Hal- 
evy.  Gray,  Macalister,  H.  Vincent,  Ronzevalle  have  examined 
the  stone  minutely  and  agree  (excepting  Vincent)  that  it  is 
older  than  the  Siloam  inscription.     "The  inscription  probably 

belongs  to  the  eighth  century The   workmanship  is 

rough,  but  the  type  of  the  letters  is  closely  akin  to  the  earliest 
inscriptions  in  the  N.  Semitic  alphabet  that  we  possess.  Judg- 
ing by  the  writing  I  should  say  that  the  inscription  is  later  than 
the  Moabite  and  earlier  than  the  Siloam.  The  letters  which 
weigh  with  me  most  in  connecting  the  inscription  somewhat 
closely  in  time  with  those  of  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries  are 

the  samekh  and  the  daleth The  samekh  of  the  Gezer 

inscription  is  of  the  earliest  type,  with  this  peculiarity  that  the 
perpendicular  stroke  starts  from  above  the  top  horizontal.    The 


28  The  text  as  translated  from  Lidzbarski's  transliteration  is: 

(i).   Month   of   the    fruit  harvest — month    of — 

(2).  the  sowing. — Month  of  tne  after-grass. 

(3).   Month  of  the   flax-harvest. 

(4).  Month  of   the   barley-harvest. 

(5).  Month  of  the  harvest  of  all   the  rest. 

(6).   Month   of   the   pruning  of   vine-plants. 

(7).  Month    of   the    fig-harvest. 

2»  Macalister  and  Lidz.  regard  it  as  a  calendar,  perhaps  a  kind  of  agricultural 
calendar,  the  latter,  however,  adding:  "The  tablet  contains  no  systematic  division 
of  the  whole  year,  but  records  the  months  of  agricultural  activity.  The  enumera- 
tion begins  with  harvest,  omits  the  two  winter  months,  resumes  with  the  begin- 
ning of  spring  and  counts  up  the  months  in  unbroken  order"   (Ephem.,  Ill,   38). 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  Ill 

form  of  daleth  points  to  the  same  conclusion"  (Gray,  Pal.  Ex. 
Fund,  Jan.,  1909). 

S.  Ronzevalle,  of  Beirut,  regards  the  inscription  as  next 
to  the  Moabite  in  age :  "The  inscription  gains  equally  from  the 
linguistic  and  palseographic  point  of  view,  since  one  may,  with- 
out any  improbability,  ascribe  it  to  some  professional  scribe, 
such  as  Gezer  surely  had  in  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries  B.  C, 
the  epoch  to  which  the  language  and  especially  the  writing 
point.  The  gaucherie  of  the  inscription  need  make  no  differ- 
ence ;  the  hand  which  traced  with  a  stylus  these  unruly  charac- 
ters would  be  less  maladroit  when  it  held  a  pen". 

H.  Vincent,  a  French  archseologist,  labors  through  25  octavo  pages 
to  prove  that  the  inscription  is  comparatively  late,  not  much  earlier  than 
the  Exile.  His  chief  contention  is  that  a  comparison  of  this  writing 
on  soft  limestone  with  the  hard  basalt  of  the  Moabite  or  with  the  Siloam 
is  iniadmissible,  and  that  the  scribe  of  Gezer,  unlike  the  royal  scribes  of 
Moab,  engraved  directly  and  not  from  a  carefully  prepared  exemplar; 
hence  the  irregularity  of  the  letters  and  the  mingling  of  early  and  late 
forms.  Vmcent  offers  no  proof  that  the  Moabite  letters  had  been,  and 
those  of  Gezer  had  not  been  previously  'traced' ;  nor  yet  that  the  Gezer 
scribe  cut  the  characters  "directly  and  without  a  preliminary  design". 
Even  if  such  bad  been  the  procedure,  Vincent  has  not  accounted  for  the 
undoubtedly  archaic  and  Moabite  type  of  the  letters.  His  article  from 
first  to  last  is  a  case  of  special  pleading  and  characterized  by  bitter  an- 
tagonism to  Gray  and  Lidzbarski.^° 

It  has  not  been  the  good  fortune  of  the  writer  to  have  had  access 
to  tihe  original  tablet,  but  he  has  carefully  scrutinized  with  a  glass  the 
excellent  fac-simile  of  Lidzbarski  (Ephem.  Ill,  Tafel  VI).  At  least  17 
of  the  22  letters  of  the  alphabet  occur,  some  of  them  more  than  once, 
as  zayin,  lamed,  mem  and  pe,  twice,  ayin  and  shin  three  times,  tsadhe 
and  koph  four  times,  heth  and  jod  eight  times  and  resh  thirteen  times. 
This  fortunate  circumstance  serves  as  a  control  of  the  letters.  But  a 
special  difficulty  arises  from  the  conjecture  that  the  stone  is  a  palimpsest 
and  that  only  a  part  of  the  original  writing  was  erased  before  the 
calendar  was  inscribed.^^  Such  is  the  view  of  Vincent  and  Lidzbarski, 
but  Macalister  dissents. 

In  addition  to  Gray's  above  description  of  some  of  the  letters,  we 

^^  See  Revue  Biblique.  Sixieme  Annee,  Avril,  1909,  pp.,  243-269.  In  the 
interest  of  fairness,  we  reproduce  a  part  of  V'.s  argument:  "L'archaism,  on  le 
voit,  n'est  done  pas  aussi  absolu  qu'on  I'a  voulu.  II  est  reel;  mais  sans  doute 
y  avait-il  un  moyen  beaucoup  plus  simple  de  le  concevoir  et  de  I'accorder  avec 
les   nuances    mcdernes    qui   s'y   melent,    en  tenant   compte   de   la   ture   materielle  de 

la    tablette    et    du    precede    tres    vraisemblable    de    gravure    directe Le 

scribe  de  Gezer  pouvait  deja  etre  beaucoup  moins  virtuose  en  calligraphie,  que 
ses  collegues  des  capitales  judeenne  et  moabite.  Quelle  que  soit  toute  fois  1'  ele- 
gance ou  I'habitude  de  son  ecriture  courrante,  il  ecrivait  ici  au  stylet,  ou  plutot 
il  gravait   directement,   et  sans  dessin  prealable,   les   lettres   dans   le   calcaire   doux." 

^1  Die  Schrifflaeche  zeigt  allerhand  S'triche  und  Figuren,  die  nicht  zum  jetzi- 
gen  Text  gehoeren.  Ich  habe  die  Vermutung  ausgesprochen,  dass  die  weiche 
Kalksteintafel  als  Schreibtafel  benutzt  wurde,  dass  sie  schon  frueher  ein  oder 
mehrmals  beschrieben  war  und  die  Striche  Ueberreste  der  letzten  schlect  wegpo- 
lierten   Schicht   seien,   d.  h.  dass   die  Tafel   ein    Palimpsest  sei    (Lidz.,   op.  cit.). 


112  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

comment  briefly  on  a  few  others.  After  yerach,  lines  i,  2,  and  6,  and 
after  ksr,  line  5,  occurs  a  character  which  is  either  wau'  or  nun.  It  is 
generally,  though  not  without  doubt,  regarded  as  the  former.  The 
heth  has  in  general  three  forms  as  in  the  Chart.  The  jod  also  varies 
considerably,  the  arm  in  some  cases  differing  in  length  and  inclination. 
Tsadhe  too  is  peculiar.  In  nearly  every  instance  the  shaft  of  the  resh 
inclines  somewhat  more  to  the  left  than  in  the  Moabite.  Both  the 
general  type  of  the  letters  and  the  variants  of  the  same  letter  may  be 
seen  by  comparing  lines  4  and  5,  the  first  two  words  of  which  are  the 
same;  yet  the  letters  vary  somewhat.  All  this  in  our  judgment  shows 
that  the  scribe  was  quite  familiar  with  the  Semitic  script,  but  neverthe- 
less cut  individual  letters  with  about  the  same  degree  of  similarity  and 
difference  as  an  unprofessional  writer  to-day  would  trace  letters  with  a 
stylus  on  stone  or  any  intractable  material. 

A  comparison  of  the  letters  with  the  Moabite,  Zakar,  Hadad,  and 
Siloam  inscriptions  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  script  is  not  quite  as 
archaic  as  the  Moabite,  but  much  more  so  than  the  Siloam.  We  may 
therefore  confidently  assign  it  to  about  825  and  perhaps  850  B.  C,  cer- 
tainly not  later  than  800.  In  either  event,  the  tablet  is  of  far-reaching 
significance  in  every  way.  It  confirms  the  epigraphic  evidence  already 
presented  and  still  to  be  presented  that  the  Phoenician  script  (in  the 
broad  sense)  originated  centuries  earlier  than  has  generally  been  sup- 
posed ;  further,  that  the  type  of  script  current  in  Israel  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury implies  a  long  period  of  native  development.  It  shows  also  that 
(contrary  to  the  Pan-babylonists)  the  Phoenician  script  (rather  than  the 
cuneiform)  was  in  extensive  use  in  Israel  for  the  most  varied  purposes 
of  life  and  must  have  been  introduced  centuries  previously;  otherwise 
it  is  impossible  to  explain  how  a  humble  peasant  could  have  been  in 
possession  of  the  art. 

3.  The  Jeroboam  Seal. 

An  ancient  Hebrew  inscription  discovered  by  the  German 
Palestine  Union  at  Tell  el  Mutesellin  in  1904  has  confirmed  in 
a  remarkable  way  the  proof  of  the  use  of  the  Semitic  script  in 
Israel  during  the  early  years  of  the  monarchy.  It  is  an  en- 
graved seal  containing  in  the  middle  the  figure  of  a  lion  with 
open  jaws  and  the  following  legend  on  the  upper  and  lower 
edges  :  "Belonging  to  Schema,  the  servant  of  Jeroboam".  The 
engraving  was  probably  executed  by  an  Israelitish  or  Phoenician 
workman,  similar  lion-types  being  found  on  other  Canaanite 
gems.  Kautzsch,  Stade,  Cheyne  and  Lidzbarski  have  discussed 
the  recovered  treasure.  It  is  unquestionably  very  ancient ;  but 
how  ancient  ?     Much  depends  on  the  answer. 

An  argument  for  the  age  has  been  constructed  from  the 
name  Jeroboam,  it  being  assumed  that  one  or  the  other  of  the 
kings  of  that  name  is  meant.  Jeroboam  I  reigned  in  937-915, 
and  Jeroboam  II  in  781-741.  Those  who  favor  the  view  that 
the  seal  is  of  the  same  type  as  the  Siloam  inscription  (Stade, 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  II3 

Cheyne)  refer  it  to  the  period  of  Jeroboam  II,  others  to  Jero- 
boam I.  "It  may  belong  equally  well  to  the  age  of  Jeroboam  I, 
for  in  the  absence  of  great  monuments  in  the  Canaanite  script 
anterior  to  the  Moabite,  no  one  is  able  to  show  that  this  type  of 
script  underwent  material  changes  in  the  period  between  Jero- 
boam I  and  Mesha.  In  fact  the  character  of  the  Greek  alpha- 
bet, which  had  evidently  branched  off  before  the  tenth  century, 
points  to  a  long  period  of  stability  in  the  oldest  types.  The 
contention  that  the  seal  was  prepared  during  the  reign  of  Jero- 
boam II  rests  largely  upon  the  assumption  that  the  prominence 
of  court-officials,  among  whom  was  also  the  office  of  'servant 
of  the  king'  fits  in  better  with  the  later  period  than  with  the 
first  years  of  the  Northern  Kingdom".^^  The  latter  claim, 
however,  has  little  force  in  view  of  the  list  of  officials  of  all 
kinds  mentioned  in  i  K.  4  as  connected  with  Solomon's  court. 

Lidzbarski  urges  substantially  the  same  view  as  Kautzsch : 
"The  script  has  the  oldest  impress  of  the  Semitic  alphabet.  But 
the  mem  already  shows  the  germ  of  a  peculiarity  found  later 
only  in  the  specifically  Hebrew  script.  The  first  and  third  lines 
of  the  serrated  head  of  the  letter  were  cut  parallel  to  the  shaft 
and  with  equal  thickness,  and  the  two  other  lines  in  lighter 
strokes.  The  chief  stroke  of  the  upper  mem  is  somewhat  long- 
er than  that  of  the  lower ;  but  this  is  probably  due  to  the  nature 
of  the  margin.  Otherwise  the  script  of  the  seal  has  a  much 
older  appearance  than  that  of  Siloam ;  and  the  period  in  which 
the  same  writing  as  that  upon  the  seal  was  in  general  use,  was 
long  before  that  of  the  Siloam.  Accordingly  the  script  would 
point  to  the  age  of  Jeroboam  I."     (Ephem.) 

As  Kautzsch  and  Lidzbarski  are  high  European  authorities 
in  such  matters,  we  are  justified  in  assigning  the  seal  to  the 
time  of  Jeroboam  I,  or  about  920  B.  C.  Epigraphically  the  in- 
scription falls  between  950  and  875.  In  the  chart,  col.  XXIII, 
we  give  the  approximate  date  900-800,  as  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  various  views. 

Some  important  conclusions  follow  from  the  above  dis- 
covery. First,  it  is  clear  that  writing  must  have  attained  a 
high  degree  of  perfection  in  Israel  in  the  tenth  century  B.  C, 
for  this  seal  is  a  work  of  art.  It  is  on  jasper  in  the  form  of  a 
scarabseoid  and  shows  a  high  state  of  finish.  The  firmness  and 
regularity  of  the  letters  indicate  a  long  period  of  permanence 

'2  Kautzsch,    Ein    Althehraeisches    Siegel    von    Tell    el-Mutsellin    in    Mitt.    u. 
Nachr.   d.  Deut.  Palaes.    Vereins,  1904. 

8 


114  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

of  forms,  extending  over  centuries  and  implying  a  guild  of  men 
engaged  in  engraving  on  wood  and  stone.  Before  such  an  art 
became  established  in  Israel,  there  must  have  been  a  long  per- 
iod in  which  more  convenient  and  tractable  material  than  stone, 
namely  papyrus  and  membranes,  were  employed.  Thus,  again, 
it  appears  that  no  violence  is  done  to  facts,  if  we  hold  that  writ- 
ing, and  that  too  as  a  permanent  embodiment  of  literature,  was 
known  in  Israel  from  the  date  of  the  judges  and  even  the  Exo- 
dus. 

4.  The  Samaria  Ostraca. 

Recently  some  inscriptions  have  been  discovered  in  Pales- 
tine which  prove  conclusively  that  the  archaic  Phoenician  script 
was  well  known  in  Israel  in  900  B.  C.  In  1910  the  Harvard 
Expedition  to  Palestine,  headed  by  Prof.  G.  A.  Reisner,  con- 
ducted excavations  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  city  of  Samaria, 
capital  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  There  was  discovered  part 
of  a  massive  Hebrew  structure,  believed  to  be  the  palace  of 
Omri  and  Ahab.  This  building  is  supposed  to  have  covered 
more  than  one  and  a  half  acres  and  shows  four  periods  of  con- 
struction, tentatively  assigned  to  Omri,  Ahab,  Jehu  and  Jero- 
boam II.  'The  belief",  says  Prof.  D.  G.  Lyon,  ''that  the  build- 
ing was  originally  erected  by  Omri  and  Ahab  was  based  on 
archaeological  grounds,  and  seems  greatly  strengthened  by  the 
discovery  of  an  alabaster  vase  inscribed  with  the  name  of  Ahab's 
contemporary,  Osorkon  II  of  Egypt.  Of  unusual  interest  is 
a  series  of  ostraca  found  at  the  level  of  the  Osorkon  vase,  and 
comprising  some  seventy-five  fragments  of  pottery  inscribed 
with  records  or  memoranda  in  the  ancient  Hebrew  character." 
(Harv.  Theolog.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1911). 

The  script  of  these  ostraca  is  the  Phoenician.  'Tt  is  prac- 
tically identical  with  that  of  the  Siloam  Tunnel  inscription,  and 
this  fact  settles  at  a  stroke  the  disputed  question  whether  that 
inscription  can  be  as  old  as  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  It  is  also  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Moabite  Stone  ,  .  .  The  inscriptions  are 
written  in  ink  with  a  reed  pen  in  an  easy,  flowing  hand  and 
show  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the  stiff  forms  of  Phoenician  in- 
scriptions cut  in  stone.  The  graceful  curves  give  evidence  of 
a  skill  which  comes  only  with  long  practice.  In  many  of  the 
inscriptions  the  ink  is  so  well  preserved  that  the  readings  are 
subject  to  no  doubt,  and  in  only  a  few  cases  is  there  uncertain- 
ty. Such  distinctness  after  twenty-eight  centuries  in  a  damp 
soil  is  a  marvel.     The   reading  is   facilitated  by  the  dots  or 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  II5 

strokes  which  divide  the  words   from  one  another"   (Lyon). 
Chart,  cols.  XXIII,  XXIV. 

In  general  the  inscriptions  seem  to  be  labels  attached  to 
jars,  or  groups  of  jars,  in  the  cellar  or  store-house,  giving  date, 
ownership  and  origin  of  the  jars.^^ 

At  this  writing  the  facsimiles  of  the  script  have  not  yet 
been  published,  and  so  it  is  impossible  to  compare  the  forms  of 
the  letters  with  those  on  the  Moabite  Stone,  the  Jeroboam  seal 
and  other  early  Phoenician  types.  They  will  however  prove 
of  the  highest  value  to  Hebraists  and  epigraphists.  They  are 
the  earliest  specimens  of  Hebrew  writing  which  have  ever  been 
found,  and  in  number  and  legibility  they  far  surpass  all  known 
archaic  Hebrew  inscriptions.  Dating  from  the  reign  of  Omri 
(900-875)  and  Ahab  (875-53),  these  ostraca  take  us  back  to 
within  a  century  of  the  time  of  David  and  afford  indubitable 
proof  of  the  antiquity  of  writing  among  the  Hebrews. 

German  authorities  agree  that  these  Harvard  ''finds"  are 
by  far  the  most  valuable  of  modern  times.  That  these  ostraca 
are  in  the  archaic  Hebrew  script  opens  ''an  entirely  new  per- 
spective", says  Kittel.  "I  have  for  some  time  had  the  firm  con- 
viction that  an  extensive  literature  on  papyrus  and  in  the  na- 
tive (i  e.  Phoenician)  script  existed  in  Syria  and  Palestine 
toward  the  close  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  This  view 
receives  strong  support  from  the  ostraca,  for  it  must  be  assumed 
that  in  Palestine,  not  clay  but  skins  and  papyrus  were  the  orig- 
inal and  most  suitable  material  for  pen  and  ink.  If,  as  Lyon 
intimates,  the  script  is  decidedly  cursive,  our  view  is  doubly 
sustained.  Neither  the  script  nor  the  material  (pen  and  ink) 
was  first  introduced  in  900,  but  they  imply  long  practice  on 
papyrus  and  therefore  an  extended  Hterature  prior  to  900  B.  C. 
in  Canaan  and  Israel"  (Theolg.  Literaturh.,  Feb.,  191 1). 

Lyon  writes :  "It  is  not  improbable  that  thousands  of  such 
records  may  exist  at  Samaria.  In  some  parts  of  the  hill,  less 
overturned  than  the  summit  has  been  by  the  burrowing  of  later 
builders,  it  is  likely  that  multitudes  of  business  documents  await 
the  explorer,  documents  giving  records  of  sale,  barter,  contract, 
and  all  phases  of  private  and  social  transactions.  More  than 
this,  may  we  not  even  hope  for  historical  records  ?     We  know 

23  We  reproduce  a  few  of  the  inscriptions  as  translated  by  Prof.  Lyon.  No. 
6:  "In  the  tenth  year.  Wine  of  the  vineyard  of  the  Tell.  With  a  jar  of  fine 
oil."  No.  13:  "In  the  tenth  year.  From  Abiezer.  For  Shemaryo.  A  jar  of 
the  old  wine  for  Asa.  From  the  Tell."  No.  47:  "In  the  eleventh  year.  From 
Abiezer.     For  Asa,   Akhimelek   and    Baala.     From    Elnathan". 


Il6  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

that  the  kings  of  Israel  had  their  court  annaHsts.  And  while 
we  may  be  sure  that  their  work  was  committed  mainly  to  per- 
ishable material,  other  parts  of  it  may  have  been  written  on 
stone,  pottery,  or  clay.  Such  possibility  is  enough  to  kindle 
the  imagination  of  every  student  of  Palestinian  history"  {op. 
cit.,  p.,  142). 

5.  Other  Archaic  Hehreiv  Inscriptions. 

Other  ancient  Hebrew  inscriptions  have  been  discovered  in  recent 
years  in  Palestine  and  add  immensely  to  our  knowledge  of  the  state  of 
writing  among  the  Hebrews  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  monarchy.  At 
Tell  €S  Safi,  Tell  Zakariya,  Tell  Sandahannah  and  Tell  ej  Judeideh, 
Bliss  and  Macalister  unearthed  a  number  of  inscribed  jar-handles. 
Twenty-five  of  these  were  stamped  with  Hebrew  names  such  as  She- 
baniah,  Azzariah,  Azzur,  Menahem,  etc.,  referring  either  to  the  owner, 
or  to  the  potter  who  made  the  vessel.  In  addition  to  these  were  some 
others  of  a  different  type,  with  the  device  of  a  winged  scarab  impressed 
upon  them  and  bearing  the  names  of  four  towns,  Hebron,  Ziph,  Sucoh 
and  Mamshith,  preceded  by  a  phrase  probably  meaning  "of  the  King". 
The  script  varies,  pre-Siloam,  Siloam  and  post-Siloam  types  being 
represented.  A  few  are  probably  as  early  as  900,  B.  C.  In  any  event 
these  objects  testify  that  in  900-700,  the  art  of  writing  and  engraving  in 
the  Phoenician  alphabet  must  have  been  far  advanced  in  Israel.^*  Chart, 
col.  XXIII. 

6.  Importance  of  Seals  in  Ancient  Times. 

In  recent  years  other  archaic  Hebrew  inscriptions,  mostly 
seals  and  gems,  some  earlier,  some  later,  than  the  Siloam,  have 
come  to  light.  As  seals  played  a  prominent  role  in  the  ancient 
Orient,  especially  in  Israel,  we  describe  them  briefly.  In  anti- 
quity, when  only  comparatively  few  could  write,  the  seal  was 
extensively  used  for  a  variety  of  purposes.  Seal  impressions 
not  only  attested  a  man's  signature  (when  a  letter  or  document 
was  to  be  authenticated),  but  also  served  the  same  purposes  as 
locks  and  keys  in  modern  times ;  they  afforded  a  certain  degree 
of  protection  against  slaves  and  thieves.  Men  of  wealth  and 
station  had  their  private  seals;  royal  officers  had  in  addition 
public  seals  bearing  the  name  of  the  king.     Modem  research 


2*  See  Bliss  and  Macalister,  Excavations  in  Palestine.  Facsimiles  of  the 
scarabs  and  jar-handles  are  given  in  their  plate  56.  Nos.  i — 3  read:  "of  the 
king,  Hebron";  4 — 9,  "of  the  king,  Sucoh";  10,  12,  13,  14,  "of  the  king,  Ziph"; 
16,  17,  "of  the  king,  Mamshith";  20,  "Hoshea,  son  of  Zaphron";  21,  "Sheba- 
niah,  son  of  Azariah";     28,   "of  Azzur,   son   of   Haggai". 

Sayce  in  a  review  of  the  date  of  the  jar-handles,  in  the  Palestine  Expl.  Fund, 
1900,  inclines  to  the  view  that  they  are  similar  to  those  of  the  Amarna  period. 
As  they  disappeared  toward  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  he  assigns  them  to  800 
B.  C.  and  some  of  them  possibly  to  the  age  of  Solomon.  Lidz.  (Ephem.,  I,  182) 
sees  two  styles  of  writing,  a  later,  post-exilic,  and  an  earlier,  with  letters  sub- 
stantially as  on  the  Moabite  Stone.  The  presence  of  jod  as  vowel-letter  is  ex- 
plained on  the  theory  that  the  matres  lectionis  in  the  Semitic  texts  are  earlier  by 
far  than   generally  supposed,  being   found   already   in  Bar-rekub. 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  II7 

has  brought  to  view  hundreds  of  seals  in  Babylonia,  Egypt, 
Syria,  Palestine  and  the  Greek  islands,  all  of  them  exhibiting 
some  artistic  and  national  characteristics.^^ 

Seals  were  universally  in  vogue  in  the  ancient  world,  ''ex- 
tending from  the  mists  of  Babylonian  antiquity  to  the  decline 
of  Roman  civilization"  (Ecy.  Brit.).  Gems,  seals,  signets,  dat- 
ing as  far  back  as  3500  B.  C.  have  been  found  in  Egypt  and  the 
Euphrates  valley."^  They  were  probably  used  also  in  Canaan 
in  the  third  millennium  B.  C.;  the  account  of  Judah's  signet 
in  Gen.  38:  18,  25,  is  therefore  in  accord  with  contemporaneous 
usage :  '*He  gives  it  as  a  pledge,  because  it  was  the  one  thing 
which  could  be  proved  to  belong  to  him  and  would  serve  to  iden- 
tify him"  (Hast.  op.  cit.,  p.,  513). 

(i).  The  Egyptian  Seal.  The  Egyptian  seal  has  the 
characteristic  form  of  a  scarab  (from  the  Latin  scarabaeus,  a 
beetle,  which  was  sacred  in  Egypt).  It  was  made  of  wood, 
ebony,  lapis  lazuli,  rarely  of  metal  or  glass,  was  enameled,  col- 
ored, and  sometimes  modified  in  form.  The  latter  are  called 
scarabseoids.  Various  objects  were  engraved  on  the  lower 
edge,  either  hieroglyphics,  containing  the  name  of  the  wearer, 
the  king  or  a  god,  or  figures  of  birds,  snakes,  lotus-flowers  and 
geometrical  forms.^^ 

(2).  The  Babylonian  Seal.  Among  the  Babylonians  the 
seal  had  characteristically  the  form  of  a  cylinder,  or  a  little  rol- 
ler three-fourths  of  an  inch  to  two  long,  and  from  one-half  to 
one  inch  in  diameter,  w^ith  engraved  letters  and  pictures.  It 
was  made  of  basalt,  porphyry,  jasper,  or  clay,  pierced  longi- 
tudinally and  suspended  from  the  neck  of  the  owner  by  a  linen 
or  woolen  cord.  Rolled  over  the  moist  clay,  it  produced  a 
clear  im.pression.     Seals  without  figures  are  rare;    besides  the 

2^  "In  the  early  days  of  civilization  the  art  of  writing  was  practically  limited 
to  a  class  of  professional  scribes.  Every  one  outside  that  class,  from  the  king 
downwards,  needed  a  signet  to  authenticate  the  documents  with  which  he  was 
concerned.  Herodotus,  I,  195,  says,  of  the  Babylonians,  each  one  has  a  seal" 
(Hast.  Die.  Bible,  IV,    513). 

-^  "The  seal,  owing  no  doubt  to  its  convenient  size  and  practical  use,  was 
adopted  by  all  the  nations  of  antiquity  at  an  early  period.  Its  use  was  so  univer- 
sal when  the  book  of  Genesis  was  written,  that  Judah  is  represented  as  giving 
to  Tamar  his  staff,  bracelets  and  signet,  as  pledges  (38:  18);  whilst  in  Exodus, 
semi-precious  stones,  graven  with  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  set 
in  gold,  and  ouched  with  chains  of  the  same  shiny  metal,  are  distributed  about  the 
breast  and  shoulders  of  Aaron's  robe:  'like  the  engravings  of  a  signet',  Ex.  28: 
21"   (Perrot   and  Chipiez,  Hist,    of  Art,    I,   338). 

3'  "In  oroportion  to  the  rank  and  wealth  of  their  possessors,  they  were 
carved  on  sard,  amethyst,  chalcedony,  and  serpentine;  also  on  tenderer  material, 
schist,  green,  blue  and  maculated  stones;  the  greater  proportion  in  vitrified  terra- 
cotta— many  very  beautiful  in  ivory,  bound  or  mounted  in  silver  rings  and  brace- 
lets" (M.  Sommerville,  Engraved  Gems,  etc.,  p.,  41). 


Il8  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

script,  the}  contain  engraved  representations  changing  with  the 
taste  of  the  age,  but  relating  mostly  to  the  worship  of  the  gods. 
It  is  thought  that  the  seal-cylinder  was  native  to  Babylonia,  al- 
though found  in  pre-historic  times  in  Egypt.  Its  use  in  Eg>^pt 
extended  to  the  close  of  the  i8th  dynasty,  when  it  was  almost 
wholly  displaced  by  the  scarab. 

(3).  The  Hehrezv  Seal.  Recent  excavations  have  shown 
that  in  Palestine  both  forms  of  the  seal,  the  Egyptian  scarab  and 
the  Babylonian  cylinder,  were  in  use.  So  far  as  indicated  by 
the  discoveries  to  date,  it  would  seem  that  the  scarab  was  the 
more  popular;  in  fact,  however,  a  style  peculiarly  Palestinian 
or  Israelite,  a  blending  of  the  scarab  and  the  cylinder,  gradual- 
ly developed.  Thus  the  Jeroboam  seal,  described  above,  has 
the  Egyptian  form  of  a  scarabaeoid;  but  the  engraving  repre- 
sents a  lion  in  an  attitude  characteristically  Babylonian.  Still 
more  characteristic  of  the  Palestinian  type  is  a  seal-cylinder 
found  in  Taannak,  which  in  addition  to  the  Babylonian  script 
and  images,  has  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  and  amulets.  This 
seal,  which  dates  from  the  time  of  Hammurabi,  was  produced 
in  Canaan  and  shows  that  already  in  2,000  B.  C.  a  commingling 
of  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  culture  had  taken  place. 

Up  to  the  present  time  some  fifty  seals  in  the  archaic  He- 
brew script  have  been  found.  In  contrast  with  other  old  Sem- 
itic or  Egyptian  seals,  the  best  types  have  rarely  any  pictures  of 
animals  and  natural  objects  (Ex.  "Thou  shalt  not  make  unto 
thee  a  graven  image,  etc.,").  The  legend  or  lettering  is  gen- 
erally in  two  Hues  separated  by  strokes,  or  in  the  margin,  if 
the  seal  be  oval.  That  the  Hebrews  early  made  use  of  seals 
is  now  generally  allowed  by  scholars. ^^ 

7.  Archaic  Hebrew  Seals. 

We  give  a  brief  account  of  the  most  important  archaic  He- 
brew seals  as  evidence  that  the  Phoenician  script  was  quite  ex- 
tensively employed  by  the  Hebrews  at  a  comparatively  early 
date. 

^^  "Not  only  at  head  centres,  as  at  Jerusalem  and  Samaria,  but  in  every  town 
were  doubtless  shops  in  the  various  bazaars,  where  carnelian,  hematite,  jasper  and 
onyx  were  cut  to  the  required  shape;  symbols  and  ornaments  having  been  pre- 
viously prepared,  so  that  the  buyer  had  only  to  wait  the  time  necessary  to  have 
his  name  engraved.  A  handcraft  which  is  the  monopoly  of  the  few  is  sure  to 
pay  well;  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  therefore,  that  the  Israelites  would  be  back- 
ward in  trying  to  become  proficient  in  an  art  which  promised  so  well,  albeit  they 
could  not  hope  to  displace  the  Phoenicians,  whose  multitudinous  workshops  turned 
out  intaglios,  both  on  stone  and  on  tinted  or  figured  glass  paste,  in  such  quantities 
and  at  so  moderate  a  price  as  to  be  within  the  means  of  the  humblest;  to  them  the 
art  in  all  its  minute  and  intricate  delicacy  was  an  open  book  and  child's  play" 
(Perrot  and  Chipiez,  op.   cit.,   1,   338). 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  II9 

(i).  The  Shemayahu  Seal  .This  is  one  of  the  oldest  of 
extant  Hebrew  seals.  It  was  purchased  by  Waddington  in 
Aleppo  and  is  fully  described  by  Levy,  who  regards  it  as  of  the 
eighth  pre-Christian  century.  Lidzbarski  places  it  somewhat 
earlier.  A  strange  peculiarity  is  that  the  figure  of  an  ox  or 
bull  separates  the  upper  and  lower  lines  of  the  inscription. 
This  however,  is  in  accord  with  the  popular  representation  of 
Jehovah  by  a  bull  in  early  times.  It  reads :  "Belonging  to 
Shemayahu,  son  of  Azarahu".     Chart,  col.  XXIII. 

(2).  The  Ohadiah  Seal  This  is  a  typical  Hebrew  seal 
with  merely  the  name  engraved  upon  it  thus:  ''Belonging  to 
Obadiah,  servant  of  the  king".  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Oba- 
diah  did  not  add  the  name  of  the  king  whom  he  served.  In 
that  case  we  could  with  greater  confidence  identify  him  with 
the  true  worshipper  of  Jehovah  who  was  the  governor  of  Ahab's 
palace  and  a  friend  of  EHjah  ( i  K.  i8).  In  any  event  "the 
seal  of  that  official  must  have  closely  resembled  ours,  for  the 
inscription  arranged  in  two  lines  is  archaic  enough  to  be  carried 
back  to  that  remote  period"  (Perrot  and  Chipiez,  op.  cit.,  p., 
340),  that  is  to  about  860  B.  C. 

(3).  The  Shebaniah  Seal.  Another  seal  regarded  as  of 
Hebrew  origin  is  a  beautiful  oval  sapphirene  carnelian.  "On 
the  obverse  stands  a  male  figure,  staff  in  hand,  in  an  attitude 
of  worship.  His  dress,  which  falls  on  the  ankles  leaving  the 
upper  part  of  the  body  uncovered,  recalls  that  of  an  Egyptian 
page.  His  name  Shebaniah  forms  a  line  behind  him".  On  the 
reverse,  between  the  upper  and  lower  lines  of  the  legend,  "Be- 
longing to  Shebaniah  son  of  Uzziah",  is  a  winged  solar  disk. 
The  script  is  of  the  classic  period.  If  the  Uzziah  is  the  king 
of  that  name,  as  seems  probable,  we  have  here  a  definite  chron- 
ological datum,  since  he  ruled  in  777-36  (Revised  Chronology). 

(4).  The  Ahijah  Seal.  This  is  a  scarab  of  the  same  gen- 
eral type  as  the  preceding,  though  smaller.  Between  the  two 
lines  an  Egyptian  deity  (perhaps)  is  represented  as  kneeling 
before  a  lotus-tree.  The  seal  belonged  to  "Abijah,  servant  of 
Uzziah".  The  letters  are  of  a  form  midway  between  the  Mo- 
abite  and  Siloam.  The  epigraphic  and  historical  data  indicate 
that  the  seal  was  made  in  the  age  of  Uzziah. 

(5).  The  Ustinozv  Seal.  An  ancient  seal,  designated  here 
by  the  name  of  its  present  owner,  Baron  Ustinow,  is  of  great 
but  disputed  age.  It  is  a  Karneol  in  the  form  of  an  ellipsoid, 
with   rounded   sides.     It   contains  in   neatly  inscribed  archaic 


I20  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Hebrew  characters  the  legend,  "Belonging  to  Schema,  servant 
of  the  king".  Its  age  has  been  discussed  by  Kautzsch,  Vincent 
and  Lidzbarski.  The  former  would  assign  it  to  the  same  per- 
iod as  the  above  described  Jeroboam  seal ;  Vincent  and  Lidz- 
barski on  epigraphic  grounds  place  it  a  century  or  so  later. 
From  a  careful  examination  of  the  letters,  the  present  writer 
would  regard  it  as  earlier,  certainly  not  later,  than  the  Siloam 
inscription.  In  any  event,  it  shows  that  engraving  was  gener- 
ally cultivated  in  Israel  in  the  eighth  century  B.  C. 

(6).  The  El-Siggeh  Seal.  The  inscription  runs:  ''Be- 
longing to  El-Siggeb,  daughter  of  El-Shamai".  The  two  lines 
are  separated  by  a  war-like  figure ;  two  animals  on  the  side  of 
a  plant.     Assigned  to  the  seventh  century. 

(7).  The  Joshua  Seal.  Another  old  Hebrew  seal,  pur- 
chased by  Prof.  C.  C.  Torrey  in  Sidon,  is  thus  described  by 
him :  ''It  is  a  scarabseoid,  longitudinally  pierced.  The  mater- 
ial is  agate,  nearly  white,  and  the  inscribed  surface  measures 
three-quarters  of  an  inch  in  length".  The  legend,  "Belonging 
to  Joshua,  son  of  Asayahu",  is  in  two  lines.  The  script  is  reg- 
ular and  beautiful;  assigned  to  the  seventh  century  by  Lidz- 
barski. 

(8).  The  Haggai  Seal  A  hematite  seal,  found  by  Sir  C. 
Warren  in  Jerusalem  at  a  depth  of  some  twenty  feet.  The  in- 
scription in  two  lines:  "Haggai,  son  of  Shebaneiah".  The 
letters  are  sufficiently  archaic  to  date  from  the  Uzziah  period. 

(9).  The  Hananiahti  Seals.  We  mention  next  two  ancient 
seals  described  by  CI.  Ganneau.  One  found  in  Jerusalem,  con- 
sists of  "a  very  hard  siliceous  stone,  convex  and  oval  in  shape, 
with  a  Phoenician  palmette  engraved  with  rare  perfection  above 
the  legend,  "Hananiahu,  son  of  Akbor" ;  on  the  other,  likewise 
a  scarab,  but  somewhat  larger,  a  ring  of  poppies  or  pomegran- 
ates surrounds  the  lettering,  "Belonging  to  Hananiahu,  son  of 
Azariah". 

(10).  The  Maaseyahu  Seal  A  seal  found  in  1902  at  Tell 
ej-Gudejidc  and  owned  by  Baron  Ustinow  is  inscribed  in  char- 
acters of  the  classic  Hebrew  script :  "Belonging  to  Maaseyahu 
son  of  Meshallem".     Its  date  is  approximately  700  B,  C. 

(11).  An  Ancient  Scarabaeoid.  We  merely  mention  here 
a  seal  with  a  strange  device  and  in  archaic  Hebrew  script,  but 
on  account  of  illegibility  of  the  letters  not  perfectly  decipherable. 
It  is  a  scarabaeoid  of  red-grey  Karneol,  pierced  longitudinally, 


NORTH    SEMITIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  121 

and  was  found  in  Egypt.     Lidzbarski  pronounces  it  as  very 
ancient  (Ephem.,  I,  ii). 

(12).  The  Hareph  Seal.  Found  in  Hebron  in  1900,  and 
reads,  "Belonging  to  Uzziahu,  son  of  Hareph".  The  script  is 
quite  similar  to  the  Siloam,  and,  as  in  that,  the  words  are  sep- 
arated by  a  point,     i  C.  2 :  51. 

8.  Other  Early  Hebrew  Seals. 

Among  other  ancient  Hebrew  seals  worthy  of  mention  are 
the  following :  ''Zakkur,  son  of  Hushai" ;  ''Amadiyahu,  daugh- 
ter of  Shebanayahu" ;  ''Neeheveth,  daughter  of  Ramelayahu" ; 
"Abigail,  wife  of  Asayahu" ;  "Menahemeth,  wife  of  Gaddime- 
lek". 

From  the  preceding  it  is  evident  that  seals  were  very  gen- 
erally in  use  among  the  Hebrews  from  the  year  900  B.  C.  and 
onward  and  indicate  an  advanced  state  of  writing.  Attention 
may  be  directed  to  the  fact  that  a  considerable  number  were 
the  property  of  women,  which  implies  a  highly  complex  social 
and  economic  order. 

Doubt  may  arise  whether  all  the  seals  enumerated  above 
are  really  Hebrew.  "We  are  quite  willing  to  admit",  say  Fer- 
ret and  Chipiez,  "that  seals  where  one  of  the  proper  names  is 
compounded  of  Jehovah  were  wrought  by  or  for  Israelites ;  for 
example  Jehu,  Joash,  Jonathan,  Ahiah,  El,  Elohim.  But  the 
question  is  more  difficult  of  solution  when  the  name  is  joined 
with  Baal,  as  Eshbaal,  Abimelech,  Jerubbaal,  etc.,  which,  al- 
though found  in  the  Bible  and  borne  by  Jews  of  position,  are 
common  to  all  Semitic  races,  and  might  with  equal  propriety 
have  belonged  to  Sidonians  and  Canaanites,  as  to  Jews  inhabit- 
ing Jerusalem  or  any  other  part  of  Palestine.  With  all  these 
restrictions,  we  may  accept  as  unreservedly  Jewish  a  number 
of  intaglios  with  inscriptions  in  old  Hebrew  characters"  {op. 
c^^'f  P-)  339)-  As  however,  Hebrew  words  containing  Baal, 
as  Jerubbaal,  are  early,  the  presence  of  this  word  in  the  com- 
pound is  a  proof  of  early  date. 

9.  Later  Archaic  Hebrew  Inscriptions. 

From  the  preceding  survey  it  appears  that  the  archaic  He- 
brew script  while  substantially  the  same  underwent  a  gradual 
development  from  the  earliest  times  to  about  the  fifth  century 
B.  C.  After  that  time  the  rate  of  change  is  somewhat  more 
rapid.  Nevertheless,  some  seals  and  most  of  the  coins  bear  a 
distinctly  archaic  impress,  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that 


122  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  archaic  script  was  still  in  general  use  in  500-300.  Unfor- 
tunately we  have  no  long,  and  very  few,  short  Hebrew  inscrip- 
tions from  this  period.  The  later  Phoenician  inscriptions  may, 
however,  be  taken  as  fair  representatives  of  the  script  in  use  in 
this  period.  We  shall  not  err  greatly  if  we  regard  the  Tabnith 
inscription  of  Sidon,  300  B.  C,  as  approximating  to  the  con- 
temporaneous Hebrew  script. 

E.   COMPARISON    OF    PHOENICIAN,    ARAMAIC    AND    ARCHAIC    HEBREW    SCRIPT. 

We  may  now  compare  the  three  preceding  types  of  the 
early  Semiitic  script  on  the  basis  of  the  three  representatives, 
the  Moabite  Stone,  the  Early  Zinjirli  monuments,  and  the  Gezer 
and  Siloam  inscriptions.  The  respective  dates,  about  900,  825, 
and  825-725,  lend  themselves  admirably  for  our  purpose.  That 
the  comparison  may  be  still  more  exhaustive,  we  include  impor- 
tant later  mscriptions,  as  the  Hassan  Bey-li,  Nora  and  Abydos 
among  the  Phoenician,  the  Panammu,  Nerab  and  Teima  among 
the  Aramaic  and  the  8 — 7  century  seals  among  the  Hebrew.  The 
generalization,  therefore  covers  about  four  centuries  for  each 
of  the  types,  a  period  of  sufficient  length  to  exhibit  the  law  of 
development  both  after  and  before  900  B.  C. 

The  detailed  examination  shows  that  as  early  as  900  a 
script  substantially  the  same,  yet  with  marked  variations,  was 
in  use  in  districts  as  widely  separated  as  Cyprus.  IMoab,  Jerusa- 
lem, Zinjirli,  Asia  Minor,  Egypt,  and  Assyria.  A  long  period 
would  be  required  in  that  age  for  the  introduction  and  general 
prevalence  of  such  a  script  among  nations  between  whom  com- 
munication was  rare  and  difficult.  Several  generations  would 
scarcely  suffice  to  overcome  the  well  known  conservatism  of 
the  ancient  world  in  regard  to  the  novelty ;  several  more  would 
be  required  to  supplant  the  old  method.  Besides,  time  would 
elapse  before  the  news  of  the  invention  and  its  merits  would 
be  carried  to  other  countries.  If  the  rate  of  progress  and  ex- 
tension was  not  more  rapid  than  from  900  to  500,  three  or  five 
centuries  would  elapse  before  the  general  introduction  of  the 
new  script  and  its  adoption  in  the  above  named  countries. 

On  epigraphic  grounds  everything  points  to  the  probability 
that  the  old  Semitic  characters  were  devised  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  millennium  B.  C,  perhaps  even  earlier.  The  his- 
torical situation  also  points  in  that  direction.  The  Mediterran- 
ean people  were  in  a  state  of  intense  activity;  commerce  and 
the  arts  were  flourishing.       Egyptians,  Phoenicians,  Dorians, 


SOUTH-SEMITIC    OR    ARABIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  I23 

Sidonians,  Hittites,  were  engaged  in  great  commercial  enter- 
prises, rendering  such  a  medium  of  international  communication 
an  absolute  necessity. 

The  fact  that  the  Amarna  Letters  were  composed  in  the 
cuneiform  script  is  no  decisive  argument  against  this  view.  In 
any  event  the  officials  in  Egypt,  Babylonia  and  Canaan  would 
use  a  script  generally  known  at  the  time  and  not  one  lately 
invented,  however  superior. ^^  The  Assyrian  scribes,  even  if 
conversant  with  the  Semitic  (Phoenician),  would  employ  the 
international  script.  The  claim  that  the  use  of  the  cuneiform 
in  the  Amarna  Letters  implies  the  non-existence  of  the  Semitic 
is  illicit,  for  the  same  logic  would  prove  its  non-existence  ten 
centuries  later.  It  seems  incredible  (nevertheless  it  is  a  fact) 
that  the  Assyrians  and  Persians  retained  the  lumbering  and 
complicated  cuneiform  at  least  six  centuries  after  the  simple 
Semitic  alphabet  had  been  introduced  into  practically  all  the 
civilized  countries  of  the  East.  Unless  public  sentiment,  or 
those  shaping  it,  favored  the  introduction,  its  adoption  in  any 
country  would  be  indefinitely  delayed. 

11. 

SOUTH-SEMITIC    OR    ARABIC    INSCRIPTIONS.**' 

At  an  early  period,  the  primitive  Semitic  alphabet  split  up 
into  two  great  stems,  the  North  Semitic,  and  the  South  Semitic. 
Formerly  it  was  assumed  that  the  S.  Semitic  script,  represented 
by  the  various  Arabic  dialects,  as  the  Minsean  and  Sabsean, 
were  later  developments  of  the  N.  Semitic.  But  in  recent  years, 
E.  Glaser  and  F.  Hommel  have  contended  that  the  S.  Arabian 
script  originated  about  the  beginning  of  the  second  millennium 
B.  C.  and  penetrated  the  West  Land  before  the  Amarna  period. 
That  a  high  civilization  existed  in  Southern  Arabia  at  a  remote 
date  is  attested  by  the  ruins  of  ancient  towns,  temples  and  aque- 
ducts, and  especially  by  numerous  extant  inscriptions.  Ac- 
cording to  Hommel  the  latter  are  ''written  in  an  alphabet  which 


29  That  the  Canaanite  words  in  the  Amarna  Letters  are  represented  by  cune- 
iform characters  is  quite  natural  under  the  circumstances.  A  parallel  case  is  the 
difficulty  of  introducing  a  system  of  simplified  orthography  into  English.  "There 
is  nothing  to  prevent  us  from  assuming  that  the  Canaanite  (or  so-called  Phoenician) 
script  was  in  use  in  Palestine  during  the  Amarna  period;  at  that  time,  however, 
it  had  not  yet  been  officially  employed  as  the  medium  of  diplomatic  correspon- 
dence with   Egypt"    (Hommel,   Anc.  Heb.    Trad.,  p.,   275). 

*°  Various  names,  as  Arabic,  Ishmaelite,  Ethiopic,  and  Joktanite,  have  been 
suggested.  Most  of  these  are  too  narrow.  For  our  purpose  the  terms  Arabic  and 
S.    Semitic   are   sufficiently   exact  and   comprehensive. 


124  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

belongs,  at  the  very  lowest  estimate,  to  the  same  period  as  the 
so-called  Phoenician  alphabet,  and  must  therefore  be  referred, 
together  with  the  Phoenician,  and  the  Greek  alphabet,  which 
is  derived  from  it,  to  one  and  the  same  source,  viz.  the  Western 
Semitic  alphabet,  the  structural  source  of  which  has  not  yet 
been  made  out.  This  circumstance  alone  is  an  argument  in 
favor  of  ascribing  these  inscriptions  to  the  middle  or  perhaps 
even  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  millennium  before  Christ. 
The  question  whether  they  take  their  origin  from  the  Egyptian 
hieratic  script,  or  as  seems  far  more  probable,  from  the  ancient 
Egyptian,  is  quite  a  separate  one"  (Anc.  Heb.  Trad.,  p.,  75). 

The  South  Arabian  inscriptions  are  written  in  two  dialects, 
the  Minaean  and  the  Sabaean.  The  earliest  Sabaean  inscrip- 
tions belong  to  the  first  millennium  B.  C,  not  later  than  800, 
and  probably  as  early  as  900,  or  1,000.  Next  come  Sabaean 
inscriptions  from  the  8th  to  the  3rd  century  B.  C,  and  lastly 
Neo-Sab^an  inscriptions  as  late  as  600  A.  D.  The  Minaean 
inscriptions  may  be  assigned  to  900-200  B.  C.  Extensive  col- 
lections of  early  Arabic  inscriptions  have  been  made  by  Arnaud, 
Halevy  and  Glaser ;  and  these  writers  together  with  Sayce  and 
Hommel  would  trace  the  origin  of  the  Arabic  alphabet  to  a 
period  at  least  contemporaneous  with  the  Phoenician.  Starting 
from  the  view  held  by  some  Semitic  scholars,  that  the  first 
dynasty  of  Babylon  was  of  Arabian,  and  not  of  Canaanite  or 
Babylonian  origin,  these  investigators  reach  the  conclusion  that 
all  the  conditions  were  present  for  the  formation  of  a  South 
Arabic  script  at  the  date  indicated.  "Although  at  present  we 
cannot  state  whether  as  early  as  the  time  of  Hammurabi  a 
Minaean  empire  existed,  and  from  which  part  of  Arabia  its 
dynasty  came,  nevertheless,  from  a  study  of  the  proper  names 
we  can  draw  the  result  that,  even  at  that  period,  an  Arabian 
civilization  existed  equal  to  the  Minaso- Sabaean"  (Hommel,  Rec. 
Research,  etc.,  p.,  143).  "The  most  flourishing  period  of  the 
Minaean  empire,  we  must  consider  the  centuries  preceding  and 
following  1,000  B.  C,  or  perhaps  more  correctly  about  1500 
to  800  B.  C.  {ibid.,  p.,  152)." 

The  views  of  Hommel  and  Glaser  have  received  support 
from  other  quarters.  Thus  Larfeld  (Greek  Epigraphy)  says: 
"The  Phoenician  Alphabet  is  assumed  to  have  some  connection 

*^  In  short,  Hommel  contends  that  the  S.  Arabian  script  antedates  the  N. 
Semitic,  and  that  the  alphabet  was  brought  to  Phoenicia  from  Arabia.  "The  oldest 
traditions  of  the  Hebrews  must  still  have  been  written  in  the  Minaean  alphabet 
(Mitt.  d.  V order.  As.  Gesell.,  1897,  p.,  271).  Later  positions  of  Hommel  will  be 
considered  in    another  connection. 


SOUTH-SEMITIC    OR    ARABIC    INSCRIPTIONS.  I25 

with  the  Minsean-Sabgean  inscriptions  of  Arabia.  If  Glaser  is 
correct,  the  writing  is  as  early  as  1500  B.  C.  In  that  case, 
allowance  being  made  for  the  development  implied  in  the  ear- 
liest inscriptions,  the  script  arose  as  far  back  as  1800  B.  C. 
From  various  examples  it  is  evident  that  the  forms  of  some  let- 
ters are  older  than  the  Canaanite.  Thus  the  form  of  pe  resem- 
bles more  nearly  the  supposed  original  pictograph  than  in  the 
Phoenician.  Again,  the  forms  of  kaph  (Latin  palma)  and  jod 
(Lat.  maniis)  approach  more  nearly  the  original  pictographs." 
All  this  points  to  some  connection  in  remote  times  between  Ca- 
naan and  Southern  Arabia.  This  fact,  however,  would  not 
prove  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  subsequent  to,  or  de- 
rived from  the  South-Semitic.     Chart,  col.  XXIX. 

On  the  other  hand,  since  many  of  the  inscriptions  are  of 
unknown  or  of  late  date,  the  argument  for  the  great  antiquity 
of  the  Sab^an-Minsean  script,  is  alleged  to  rest  on  a  slender 
basis.  Lieu.  Col.  Conder  regards  the  whole  Arabic  hypothesis 
with  suspicion :  'That  the  alphabet  should  have  originated  in 
Arabia  is  improbable.  The  Arabs  adopted  the  civilization  of 
Babylon,  and  of  the  Hebrew  and  Phoenician  traders  who  first 
visited  Yemem,  about  the  time  when  letters  took  the  place  of 

cuneiform  signs  in  Syria It  was  from  the  Phoenicians 

that  the  Arabs  must  have  learned  letters,  and  no  ancient  author 
ever  suggested  the  contrary  explanation"  (Hittites,  etc).  Lidz- 
barski  also  opposes  the  theory.  ''Whoever  has  any  knowledge 
of  the  art  of  writing  sees  that  the  form  of  the  script,  as  it  ap- 
pears even  in  the  oldest  S.  Arabic  monuments,  is  not  primitive, 
but  must  be  the  result  of  a  long  development.  The  S.  Semitic 
script  would  in  that  case  go  back  at  least  to  the  beginning  of 
the  second  millennium  B.  C.  But  we  have  knowledge  of  the 
N.  Semitic  since  about  1,000  B.  C.  Since  certainly  at  this  time 
and  even  earlier,  commercial  relations  existed  between  Canaan 
and  Yemen,  one  could  regard  the  Sabsean-Minsean  script  not 
only  as  an  elder  sister  but  really  the  mother  of  the  N.  Semitic 
alphabet.  Is  this  correct?"  (Ephem.  I,  no).  Nevertheless 
Lidz.  argues  at  some  length  against  such  a  view  and  in  support 
of  the  N.  Semitic  origin  (but  we  reserve  a  full  consideration  of 
his  position  for  a  later  head) . 

It  follows  from  the  preceding  that  S.  Semitic  inscriptions 
go  back  to  at  least  1200  B.  C,  implying  a  very  ancient  civiliza- 
tion, sufficiently  far  advanced  to  produce  a  high  literature. 
Lidzbarski's  admission  that  the  oldest  extant  S.  Arabic  inscrip- 


126  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

tions  imply  "a.  long  development"  is  significant  in  this  connec- 
tion and  warrants  the  conclusion  that  a  permanence  of  type  was 
reached  not  later  than  1300.  All  this  implies  that  the  N.  and  S. 
Semitic  scripts  split  off  from  each  other  and  from  the  primitive 
Semitic  or  proto-Phoenician  at  an  indefinitely  determined  date, 
but  probably  about  1500.  This  would  throw  back  the  origin 
of  the  primitive  Semitic  alphabet  to  about  19001500  B.  C,  to 
which  other  considerations  (as  the  science  of  alphabetology  and 
the  early  introduction  of  the  alphabet  into  Greece)  point. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  THE  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET 
INTO  GREECE. 

A.   EARLY  GREEK    HISTORY   AND  CIVILIZATION. 

I.  The  Pre-Hellenic  Period. 

Recent  authorities  in  Greek  history,  archaeology  and  liter- 
ature emphasize  the  fact  that  the  Greeks  came  upon  the  field 
of  history  at  a  much  earlier  date  than  was  formerly  supposed.^ 
It  is  immaterial  whether  we  designate  this  early  civilization  as 
Pelasgic,  Mycenaean,  Achaean,  Dorian,  or  pre-Hellenic,  the  fact 
remains  that  by  the  middle  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  great 
progress  had  been  made  in  all  the  arts.  The  researches  of 
Evans,  Schliemann  and  others  have  enabled  us  to  recover  a 
very  ancient  civilization. 

2.  Writing  Earlier  than  Inscriptions. 

The  earliest  writing  in  Greece,  as  elsewhere,  was  upon 
comparatively  tractable  material,  as  leaves,  wood  and  hides. 
The  custom  of  engraving  inscriptions  on  stone  and  metal,  is 
of  later  date,  and  implies  considerable  skill  in  the  arts.  Cen- 
turies earlier  than  the  Greeks,  the  Orientals  covered  the  walls 
of  their  temples  with  accounts  of  the  victories  of  their  kings. 
The  ruins  of  Cretan  palaces  from  the  Mycenaean  and  pre- 
Mycenaean  times  contain  arabesques  with  alphabetic  characters ; 
and  numerous  jars  and  vases,  covered  with  a  remarkable  linear 
script,  prove  that  in  that  remote  period  writing  on  various  kinds 
of  material  was  in  use  extensively  in  the  region  of  the  Aegean 
Sea. 

But  that  early  period  of  considerable  culture  with  its  skill 

1  "From  about  the  fifteenth  century  until  the  twelfth  one  sees  rising  from  the 
obscure  background,  probably  under  the  influence  of  Egypt,  Phoenicia.  Babylonia 
and  Phrygia,  certain  groups  of  peoples  with  distinctly  marked  characteristics. 
One  may  call  the  period  pre-Hellenic,  since  it  comes  between  the  Pelasgic  age  and 
the  Hellenic.  The  groups  of  Asia  came  to  be  more  Asiatic,  while  those  of  the 
islands  and  in  Greece  proper,  especially  in  the  Eastern  shores,  began  to  take  on 
an  Ionian  aspect.  These  latter,  though  somewhat  inclined  toward  the  Orient, 
are   separated  from   it,    and    are    open  to  cultivate  at   home  the    precious    elements 

of    civilization Toward  the    twelfth   century   again,    there   were    important 

movements  among  the  pre-Hellenic  tribes,  and  then  began  the  real  period  of  Hel- 
lenization"    (Croisset,  Hist.    Greek   Literature,    1904). 

127 


128  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

in  pictographic  writing  was  followed  by  a  decline  intellectually 
and  epigraphically.  Between  the  age  of  intellectual  activity  of 
the  Mycenasans  and  that  in  which  the  Greeks  adopted  the  Phoe- 
nician alphabet,  there  took  place  the  immigration  of  the  Dori- 
ans into  the  Peloponessus ;  as  a  result  the  enfeebled  rulers  of 
the  islands  and  the  mainland  succumbed  to  the  powerful,  but 
rude  invaders.  Fortunately  the  Greek  spirit  soon  revived. 
Driven  from  their  native  heath,  the  Greek  tribes  planted  colo- 
nies on  the  Western  coast  of  Asia  Minor.  Among  the  arts  car- 
ried with  them  was  the  Semitic  alphabet. 

3.  Testimony  of  Early  Greek  Authors."^ 

As  will  be  pointed  out  presently,  this  alphabet  was  proba- 
bly mediated  to  the  Greeks  by  the  Phoenicians.  No  Greek  in- 
scriptions of  this  early  period  are  extant ;  *'but  no  grounds  exist 
for  impugning  the  early  Greek  writers  that  they  themselves  saw 
very  ancient  inscriptions  on  jars  and  vases. ^  The  earliest  ex- 
amples of  writing  pertain  to  the  offices  of  religion;  and  in 
Greece  the  priests  were  the  first  to  cultivate  the  art  extensively. 
The  oldest  epigraphic  monuments  were  executed  under  their 
direction.  Lists  of  the  victors  at  the  annual  religious  festivals 
are  among  the  earliest  records,  ninth  to  eighth  century"  (Lar- 
feld,  op.  cit.). 

Another  high  authority  says  :  *Tt  is  now  generally  admitted 
that  the  Greeks  had  learned  the  art  of  writing  from  the  great 
commercial  people  (the  Phoenicians)  not  later  than  the  ninth 
century,  and  probably  as  much  as  three  centuries  earlier.  For 
a  long  time  it  would  only  be  employed  for  such  limited  and  priv- 
ate uses  as  the  writing  of  names  on  lots.  Probably  its  more 
extended  use  began  in  the  temples,  where  inscribed  offerings 
and  registers  of  priests  and  of  sacrifice  existed  at  an  early  date. 
....  It  is  likely  that  the  Greeks  did  not  begin  to  inscribe 
upon  marble  until  they  had  experimented  with  the  use  of  writ- 

2  The  highest  European  authority  on  Greek  inscriptions  is  W.  Larfeld,  whose 
Handbuch  d.  Griech.  Epigraphik,  2  Baende,  Leip.  1907,  has  been  constantly  con- 
sulted. Years  ago,  Larfeld  established  his  reputation  by  the  article  on  Griechische 
Epigraphik  in  the  second  edition  of  Mueller's  Handbuch  d.  Klass.  Altertums-Wis- 
senschaft,  in  which  he  laid  down  the  lines  of  investigation  subsequently  carried 
out  more  fully  in  the  above  work.  Larfeld  surpasses  Kirchhoff  as  much  as  the 
latter  his  predecessors.  He  is  a  safe  investigator,  who  looks  at  all  sides  of  a 
subject.     Unless    otherwise    indicated,    our    references   are   to    the    Handbuch. 

3  Boeckh  says  (CIG,  I,  63)  that  previous  to  the  Trojan  War  the  use  of  writ- 
ing (Larfeld  suggests  'the  epigraphic  use  of  writing')  was  exceedingly  rare  among 
the  Greeks  and  that  only  a  few  inscriptions  are  earlier  than  the  First  Olympiad, 
776,  B.  C.  Andrew  Lang  writes:  "There  is  no  reason  why  Pausanias  should  not 
have  seen  at  Ascra,  as  he  tells  us  that  he  did,  if  not  the  original  copy  of  Hesiod, 
at  least  an  extremely  ancient  copy,  chiseled  on  thin  and  mouldering  plates  of  lead" 
(Homer  and  the  Epic). 


INTRODUCTION  OF  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET  INTO  GREECE.     1 29 

ing  on  leaves,  clay,  metal,  wood  and  other  substances"  (Hicks 
and  Hill,  Manual  of  Greek  Hist.  Inscrip.,  1901). 

The  classical  writers  agree  in  ascribing  the  introduction  of 
the  alphabet  to  the  Phoenicians.  Herodotus  says  :  "The  Phoe- 
nicians introduced  into  Greece  the  knowledge  of  letters,  of 
which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  Greeks  had  heretofore  been  ignor- 
ant" (V:  58).  So  also  Diodorus  Siculus;  and  Pliny  affirms 
that  "to  the  Phoenicians  belongs  the  glory  of  the  invention  of 
the  alphabet"  (Nat.  Hist.,  V:  12).  The  word  alphabet  itself, 
composed  of  alpha  and  beta,  is  also  a  silent  witness.  These 
words  are  plainly  identical  with  the  names  aleph  and  heth, 
meaning  respectively  ox  and  house  in  the  Phoenician,  but  mean- 
ingless in  the  Greek.  In  short  the  names,  number,  order  and 
forms  of  the  primitive  Greek  alphabet  attest  a  Semitic  origin. 
See  Chart,  cols.  XXX,  XXXI,  XXXII. 

4.  The  Cretan  Script. 

Larfeld  is  disposed  to  allow  considerable  weight  to  the 
researches  of  A.  J.  Evans  cited  above:  "Through  the  epoch- 
making  work  of  Evans,  the  existence  of  an  archaic  hieroglyphic 
and  a  linear  script  in  the  islands  and  coasts  of  the  Eastern 
Mediterranean  has  been  established,  of  which  the  former  con- 
tains echoes  of  the  Hittite  picture  script  of  Asia  Minor  and 
North  Syria,  and  the  latter,  some  remarkable  agreements  with 
the  Cypriote  syllabary,  reaching  far  down  into  the  historical 
period.  Both  systems  of  writing  stretch  over  a  vast  period  and 
belong  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  The 
hieroglyphic  system  seems  to  have  been  substantially  the  script 
of  the  oldest  inhabitants  of  Crete  and  of  the  pre-Mycensean 
age;  the  linear  script  to  which  the  Homeric  'signs'  (Iliad,  VI: 
168)  may  belong  seems  to  have  been  the  Mycenaean  system  in 
the  broadest  sense"  (Larf.,  op.  cit.). 

According  to  Evans,  the  alphabetic  forms  borrowed  by  the 
Greeks  from  the  Phoenicians  were  influenced  by  the  pre-his- 
torical  Aegean  script.  Of  the  22  letters  of  the  Phoenician  al- 
phabet, about  12  closely  resemble  one  or  the  other  of  the  Cretan 
characters.  In  view  of  such  marked  parallelismi  in  the  form 
and  significance  of  the  signs,  Evans  is  convinced  that  de 
Rouge's  hypothesis  of  the  derivation  of  the  Phoenician  script 
from  the  Egyptian  can  nO'  longer  be  maintained ;  he  suggests 
that  the  Phoenician-Greek  alphabet  represents  a  selection  of 
signs  from  a  syllabic  script  of  the  same  group  as  the  Cretan. 

Such  a  combination  of  circumstances  on  the  Syrian  coast 
9 


130  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW    LITERATURE. 

may  perhaps  have  been  due  to  the  arrival  in  the  Mycenaean 
times  of  a  people  from  the  Aegean  Sea,  as  e.  g.,  the  Philistines, 
who.  though  afterward  Semitized,  but  known  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  Kaphtorim  and  Krethim,  are  supposed  to  have  migrated 
from  Crete.  That  the  Philistines  were  originally  inhabitants 
of  Crete  is  clear,  says  Evans,  from  the  Egyptian  monuments, 
which  represent  this  people  from  ''the  island  in  the  sea"  as 
bearing  tribute;  these  data  harmonize  perfectly  with  the  style 
of  gems  and  seals  found  in  the  Eastern  part  of  Crete. 

B.    ORIGIN    OF   THE   GREEK    ALPHABET. 

According  to  Larfeld,  neither  the  linear  script  of  the  prim- 
itive Hellenic  period,  nor  the  syllabic  script  of  the  Cretans  ex- 
erted any  perceptible  influence  on  the  development  of  the  Greek 
alphabet.  *'As  the  Greek  immigrants  of  Cyprus,  of  whom  only 
a  small  number  could  write  at  all,  soon  exchanged  their  own 
script  for  that  current  in  the  island,  so  the  Greeks  remaining  in 
the  circle  of  the  Aegean,  abandoned  in  the  course  of  centuries 
their  heavy  native  script  for  the  more  perfect  alphabet  of  the 
Phcenicians.  In  spite  of  all  minor  differences,  the  various  local 
Greek  alphabets  exhibit  agreement  in  the  fundamental  forms, 
which  indicates  not  only  relationship  with  each  other,  but  a 
common  origin  of  the  characters.  In  answering  the  question 
of  the  origin  of  the  Greek  alphabet  we  are  thrown  back  upon 
sources  of  unequal  value,  namely  tradition,  formal  statements 
and  the  inscriptions"  (Larf.,  op.  cit.,  II,  330). 

The  Greek  inscriptions  point  to  some  Semitic  people.  Not 
only  were  the  letters  called  "Phoenician  signs",  but  in  the 
archaic  form  they  are  strikingly  similar  to  the  archaic  Phoeni- 
cian inscriptions.  The  direction  of  the  writing  in  the  oldest 
Greek  monuments,  from  right  to  left,  is  an  undoubted  proof 
of  Semitic  origin.  See  this  exhibited  in  the  chart,  col.  XXX. 
Though  the  Phoenician  alphabet  may  have  been  introduced 
into  Greece  at  various  points,  it  probably  spread  from  some 
prominent  center.  Where  was  this  ?  Boeotia,  Asia  Minor,  and 
Delphi  have  been  suggested.* 


*  According  to  Bergk  "there  is  inherent  probability  that  in  Boeotia,  where  the 
Aeolic  and  Ionian  races  came  into  immediate  contact,  the  Semitic  alphabet  first 
gained  a  footing,  that  the  Aeolic  race  (an  old  representative  of  an  advanced  civili- 
zation) derived  it  from  the  Phoenicians  through  business  intercourse,  and  that 
then  the  lonians  learned  it  from  the  Aeolians  and  made  further  changes".  Cur- 
tius,  starting  from  his  view  that  the  Hellenes  migrated  first  to  Asia  Minor  and 
afterward  to  Europe,  holds  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  first  introduced  into 
Asia  Minor,  and  then  independently  adopted  in  various  districts  by  European 
Greeks,   above   all  by  the   Boeotians. 


INTRODUCTION  OF  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET  INTO  GREECE.     I3I 

Larfeld  says :  ''The  theory  of  the  spread  of  the  Greek  al- 
phabet from  Boeotia  appears  to  me  to  be  improbable  for  the 
reason  that  this  country  lacked  the  requisite  vantage-ground 
for  moulding  the  Hfe  and  culture  of  ancient  Greece.  With 
much  greater  likelihood  of  success,  one  may  seek  the  starting- 
point  of  the  imported  script,  in  Delphi,  the  rallying-point  of 
the  intellectual  life  of  Greece  and  the  center  of  the  powerful 
Amphictyonic  Council,  which  already  in  a  period  to  which  our 
historical  data  do  not  extend,  united  the  different  Greek  clans 
in  a  peaceful  and  prosperous  development.  It  is  inconceivable 
that  the  astute  Delphic  priests  would  not  have  had  a  prominent 
part  and  manifested  the  deepest  interest  in  such  an  important 
agent  of  Greek  culture  as  the  alphabet.  They  would  be  the 
first  to  patronize  it.  Already  in  a  hoary  antiquity,  the  Phoeni- 
cians from  Crete  had  come  to  Delphi,  and  Delphic  priests,  con- 
stituting in  fact  one  of  the  oldest  academies  of  learning,  may 
well  have  mediated  to  their  countrymen  the  priceless  possession 
of  the  alphabet  in  a  form  adapted  to  the  genius  of  the  Greek 
language"  (op.  cit.,  I,  344).^ 

We  are  concerned  here,  not  in  settling  the  dispute  of  the 
epigraphists  and  palaeographers,  but  in  drawing  certain  prac- 
tical conclusions.  Whether  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was 
adopted  by  the  Greeks  at  one  point,  from  w^hich  it  spread  to 
others ;  or,  whether  it  was  introduced  at  many  places  and  then 
gradually  assumed  the  form  of  the  common  Greek  alphabet  of 
later  days,  it  is  clear  that  such  a  complicated  process,  extending 
to  many  tribes  and  localities,  would  require  many  years.  With 
the  imperfect  means  of  communication  between  tribes  and  peo- 
ples, it  is  probable  that  several  centuries  would  elapse  before 
the  uniform  Greek  alphabet  of  the  historic  period  was  evolved. 
Thus  again  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  germs  of 
the  Semitic  alphabet  were  planted  in  Greece  not  later  than 
1200  B.  C, 

C.    EVIDENCE  OF  THE  GREEK  INSCRIPTIONS. 

A  comparison  of  the  alphabet  of  the  early  Greek  inscrip- 
tions with  the  Phoenician  reveals  some  remarkable  examples  of 
resemblance  and  dissemblance.     We  shall  see  that  here  as  in 

^  Taylor  holds  that  the  epigraphic  evidence  favors  the  view  that  the  island  of 
Thera  was  the  first  place  in  Europe  where  the  Greeks  adopted  the  Phoenician  let- 
ters (Alphabet,  II,  29).  Others  contend  that  the  Greeks  received  the  Phoen. 
alphabet  at  difterent  places.  So  E.  M.  Thompson:  "It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
the  Greeks  received  the  alphabet  from  the  Phcenicians  at  one  single  place,  from 
whence  it  was  passed  on  throughout  Hellas;  but  rather  at  several  points  of  con- 
tact from  whence  it  was  locally  diffused  among  neighboring  cities"  (Handb.  Greek 
&  Latin  Palaeography,  p.,   5). 


132  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

the  Semitic  inscriptions,  the  laws  of  development  hold,  and 
that  changes  in  the  forms  of  the  letters  are  not  arbitrary  inven- 
tions, but  the  result  of  steady  growth.  The  immense  number 
and  variety  of  Greek  inscriptions  furnishes  the  palaeographer 
the  desired  material  for  classification,  but  this  'embarrassment 
of  riches'  is  in  one  sense  unfortunate,  since  with  all  the  re- 
search of  recent  years,  no  absolute  agreement  has  been  reached 
as  to  the  kiw  of  development  or  the  origin  of  the  Greek  alpha- 
bet.^ Some  even  go  so  far  as  to  affirm  that  the  history  of  the 
Greek  alphabet  is  yet  to  be  written,  and  that  its  relation  to  the 
Phoenician  is  still  an  open  question.'^  This,  however,  is  an 
extreme  view,  for  it  is  certain  that  Larfeld  has  placed  the 
science  of  Greek  epigraphy  on  a  solid  basis  and  traced  the  chief 
periods  of  the  history  of  the  Greek  alphabet. 

Our  interest  in  Greek  inscriptions  centers  in  their  value 
for  Greek  and  Semitic  alphabetology.  From  the  shape  of  the 
letters  we  attempt  to  determine  by  the  law  of  historical  develop- 
ment the  probable  time  required  for  the  transition  from  the  orig- 
inal Greek  alphabet  to  that  exhibited  on  the  oldest  inscriptions. 
The  conclusions  thus  reached  will  throw  light  on  the  probable 
date  of  the  adoption  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet  by  the  Greeks. 
For  our  purpose  the  chief  inscriptions  of  the  early  and  imme- 
diately succeeding  periods  will  suffice  to  determine  the  law  of 
change.® 

I.  The  Abu  Simhel  Record. 

The  remarkable  inscription  which  furnishes  a  definite 
starting-point  for  Greek  epigraphy  was  not  found  in  Greece  at 
all,  but  in  a  remote  region  of  Egypt,  the  Nubian  desert.  At 
Abu  Simbel,  near  the  second  cataract  of  the  Nile,  Ramases  II, 
carved  a  m.assive,  precipitous  rock  into  a  magnificent  temple, 
''trusting,  and  not  in  vain,  that  the  desolate  solitudes  of  Nubia 

«  The  extent  of  the  material  may  be  surmised  when  it  is  recalled  that  while 
Rose's  Inscriptiones  Graecae  Vetustissimae,  1825,  contains  less  than  one  hundred 
inscriptions,  the  four  volume  work  of  Boeckh  has  more  than  10,000,  and  that  a 
complete  collection   would  comprise   nearly  30,000. 

^  See  A.  Gercke,  Zur  Geschichte  d.  Aelt.  Griech.  Alph.,  in  Hermes'  Zeitsc. 
fuer  Clas.  Phil.,  1906,  who  says:  "Die  Geschichte  d.  Griech.  Alphab.  soil  noch 
geschrieben  werden,  bisher  sind  nur  Ansaetze  dazu  vorhanden.  Das  gesammte 
Material  d.  Archae.  Inschriften  hat  Kirchhoif  vorgelegt.  Man  muss  eingestehen 
dass  seit  den  43  Jahren  d.  ersten  Auflage  sehr  wenig  an  neuen,  fruchtbaren  Ge- 
sichtspunkten  hinzugekommen  ist,  obwohl  die  neueren  Inschriftfuende  das  Ma- 
terial erfreulich  vermehrt  und  im  einzelnen  wichtige  Erkenntnisse  gebracht  ha- 
ben;  nicht  einmal  die  von  ihm  vernachlaessigte  Anknuepfung  der  Buchstabenfor- 
men  an  das  Phoenikische  Vorbild  ist  seitdem  sorgfaeltig  durchgefuehrt,  und  eine 
Geschichte    der   einzelnen   Buchstaben  noch    nicht  gewonnen    worden". 

*  The  principal  authorities  are:  Boeckh's  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Graecarum, 
1828,  1833,  1853.  Franz:  Elementa  epigraphices  Graecae,  1840.  The  fourth  vol. 
of  the  Corpus  was  brought  out  by  Kirchhoff  in  1853.  Kirchhoff's  valuable  Stu- 
dien  zur   Geschich.  d.   Griech.   Alphabets  appeared   in   1863. 


INTRODUCTION  OF  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET  INTO  GREECE.     1 33 

would  guard  more  faithfully  the  memories  of  his  glory  than 
the  palaccb  and  temples  which  he  reared  in  the  precincts  of  his 
great  cities  of  Thebes,  Memphis,  or  Abydos"  (Taylor,  op.  cit.). 
In  front  of  the  temple  are  seated  four  colossal  statues  of  the 
king,  hewn  from  the  solid  sandstone,  and  rising  each  to  a 
height  of  66  feet.  Travellers  of  all  ages  have  exhausted  the 
vocabulary  of  panegyric  in  describing  the  grandeur  of  the  con- 
ception of  carving  in  imperishable  hieroglyphics  the  glories  of 
his  reign. 

The  most  important  of  the  inscriptions  is  one  in  Phoenician, 
already  considered  on  page  97 ;  and  one  in  Greek  of  five  lines, 
the  date  of  which  is  fixed  by  the  mention  of  the  reigning  Egyp- 
tian king,  Psammeticus.  Whether  this  be  the  first  of  that  name 
(as  generally  supposed)  or  the  second,  the  date  is  approximate- 
ly 600  B.  C.  The  record  was  made  by  some  Greek  mercenaries 
in  his  service.  "Two  of  the  Greeks  seem  to  have  shared  the 
work  of  engraving  the  great  inscription,  while  eight  Greeks, 
three  Carians,  and  several  Phoenicians  separately  scratched  their 
names  elsewhere  on  the  knees  of  the  Colossus"  (Taylor). 
That  soldiers  from  all  parts  of  the  East  were  able  to  write  in 
their  respective  languages  is  proof  that  writing  was  one  of  the 
most  common  of  the  arts  in  600  B.  C.  and  was  probably  well 
known  at  a  much  earlier  date.® 

2.  The  Thera  Inscriptions. 

The  island  of  Thera,  a  hundred  miles  to  the  North  of 
Crete,  has  furnished  a  number  of  cardinal  inscriptions  illustrat- 
ing the  early  history  of  the  Greek  alphabet.  The  language  is 
Greek,  but  the  letters  are  of  a  primitive  Phoenician  type,  "be- 
longing to  an  earlier  stage  of  the  Semitic  alphabet  than  the 
Moabite  Stone  itself^^  (Taylor,  II,  29).     From  the  cemeteries 


*  The  chief  Abu  Simbel  inscriptions,  the  letters  of  which  are  given  in  our 
Chart,  col.  XXX,  are  invaluable  as  a  starting-point  in  reasoning  back  to  the 
earlier  script.  The  letters  are  so  deeply  cut  into  the  solid  cliff  and  have  suffered 
so  little  from  the  action  of  the  elements  that  they  are  distinctly  legible.  In  the 
nine  longer  inscriptions,  the  alphabet  is  practically  uniform  and  the  correctness 
of  the  spelling,  and  "the  evidence  of  familiar  habitude  with  the  use  of  graphic 
materials,  show  that  in  the  seventh  cent.  B.  C.  alphabetic  writing  could  have  been 
no  novelty  among  the  Greeks."  In  these  inscriptions,  the  direction  of  the  writ- 
ing is  no  longer  from  right  to  left,  as  in  early  Greek,  but  from  left  to  right. 
The  phonetic  changes  are  still  greater.  The  gutturals,  aleph,  he,  heth,  ayin,  and 
the  semi-consonants  waw  and  jod,  have  been  transformed  into  the  vowels,  alpha, 
epsilon,  eta,  omikron,  upsilon  and  iota,  respectively.  The  letters.  Phi,  chi,  psi, 
unknown  in  any  Semitic  alphabet  have  been  introduced;  and  marked  changes 
have  taken  place  in  the  forms  of  the  letters.  The  Greek  and  the  Phoenician  alpha- 
bet have  therefore  diverged  widely  from  each  other  since  the  Greeks  had  adopted 
the  Semitic  script. 

10  Here  and  there  a  writer  has  challenged  this  statement,  but  recent  discov- 
eries, and  the  investigations  of  Larfeld  have  proved  its  correctness. 


134  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

of  Mesa-Vouno  and  Exomiti,  dating  probably  from  the  time  of 
the  Dorians,  some  20  inscriptions  on  basalt  have  been  obtained. 
In  the  absence  of  definite  historical  references,  their  date  can 
be  determined  only  by  the  laws  of  graphic  development.  For- 
tunately, however,  they  can  be  arranged  in  a  chronological 
series  extending  over  two  or  three  centuries.  ''The  latest, 
written  from  left  to  right  in  a  Greek  alphabet  approaching  the 
Abu  Simbel  type,  may  be  assigned  to  the  seventh  century; 
others,  still  older,  are  boustrophedon ;  while  four  or  five,  writ- 
ten from  right  to  left  in  letters  of  Phoenician  style,  may  be  pro- 
nounced without  hesitation  to  be  the  oldest  extant  monuments 
of  the  alphabet  of  Greece"   (Taylor,  II,  29).^^ 

The  Thera  inscriptions  cover  the  period  of  the  transition 
from  the  early  to  the  intermediate  forms,  and  from  the  early 
mode  of  writing  from  right  to  left  to  that  which  finally  pre- 
vailed, from  left  to  right.  They  illustrate  forcibly  the  principle 
that  no  alphabet  is  formed  or  adopted  arbitrarily,  but  gradually 
and  almost  imperceptibly.^^  The  older  epitaphs  are  written 
from  right  to  left  in  Semitic  style ;  then  in  a  somewhat  cursive 
script  around  the  stone,  and  this  is  succeeded  by  the  boustro- 
phedon. Then  came  the  practice  of  writing  from  left  to  right. 
A  similar  development  takes  place  in  the  change  from  the 
Semitic  to  the  Greek  value  of  some  of  the  letters. 

3.  Summary  of  Results  from  Inscriptions. 
The  preceding  inquiry  establishes  two  propositions.  The 
first  is  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  introduced  into  Greece 
at  a  considerably  earlier  date  than  generally  supposed.  All 
recent  investigation  and  discovery  in  archaeology  tend  to  prove 
the  correctness  of  Mahaffy's  statement  that  "the  first  common 
use  of  writing  in  Greece  was  generally  fixed  at  too  late  a  date". 
Not  only  was  the  common  use  earlier,  but  the  introduction  of 
the  Phoenician  alphabet  into  Greece  must  be  placed  several  cen- 
turies earlier  than  was  thought  possible  a  generation  ago.  The 
second  proposition  is  that  the  comparatively  perfect  forms  of 


^  In  comparing  the  letters  in  the  different  columns  of  our  Chart,  some  in- 
teresting facts  emerge.  The  letters  in  col.  XXX  are  mostly  Phoenician,  with  the 
exception  of  jod,  lamed,  tsadhe,  shin  and  taw.  The  combination  of  pe  and  heth 
to  denote  ph  shows  that  the  letter  phi  had  not  yet  been  invented  and  that  heth 
still  retained  the  Semitic  power  of  a  breath.  In  another,  presumably  later  series 
of  Thera  inscriptions,  but  more  archaic  than  the  Abu  Simbel,  the  sloping  bars  in 
alpha,  epsilon  and  taw  are  clearly  remainders  of  the  Phoenician  style.  Another 
Thera  inscription  shows  the  transition  stage  from  the  older  to  the  later  forms, 
and  the  expedients  adopted  to  express  the  compound  letters. 

"  Herodotus  states  explicitly  that  the  Greek  alphabet  underwent  such  devel- 
opment. See  Bk.  V:  58.  His  account  is  in  accord  with  the  most  advanced  phil- 
ological Science. 


INTRODUCTION  OF  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET  INTO  GREECE.     I35 

the  Phoenician  letters  at  the  date  of  their  introduction  impUes 
several  centuries  of  previous  development.  If  we  once  rid  our- 
selves of  the  false  idea  that  the  Phoenician,  or  Greek,  or  any 
other  alphabet,  dropped,  Minerva-like,  full-formed  from  heav- 
en, we  shall  understand  that  centuries  of  experimentation  and 
development  were  required  before  the  few  simple  characters, 
devised,  mayhap,  by  Phoenician-Egyptian  scribes,  acquired  the 
forms  and  names  known  as  Phoenician. ^^ 

Nearly  all  recent  authorities  construct  an  argument  for  the 
antiquity  of  the  Greek  alphabet  from  the  history  of  certain  let- 
ters, as  digamma,  zeta,  san  and  sigma.  The  original  Greek 
alphabet  had  in  the  sixth  place  digamma  (F,  v,  w),  a  letter 
lacking  in  the  Phoenician  alphabet,  and  after  taw  an  upsilon,  u, 
which  is  clearly  the  Phoenician  waw  in  form  and  force.  Since 
digamma  and  waw  were  doublets,  one  or  the  other  might  be 
omitted;  and  so  the  former  finally  dropped  out.  Strangely 
enough,  the  South  Semitic  retained  ® ,  but  dropped  the  form 
for  waw.  See  chart,  XI,  6;  XXIX,  6;  XXX,  6,  23.  Hence 
the  Moabite  alphabet  could  serve  as  prototype  neither  for  the 
South  Semitic  nor  for  the  original  Greek;  and  so  centuries 
must  be  assumed  for  the  introduction  of  digamma,  its  long 
use  and  final  disappearence.^* 

The  history  of  zeta,  sigma,  san,  koppa  and  of  most  of  the 
vowels  is  involved  in  such  doubt  that  a  long  period  prior  to  the 
eighth  century  must  be  assumed  for  their  introduction,  modifi- 
cation and  final  permanence.^^ 


"  It  is  certain  that  the  introduction  of  the  alphabet  far  antedates  the  Thera 
inscriptions.  This  is  shown  as  follows.  We  know  that  the  evolution  of  eta  and 
omega  required  about  two  centuries.  Five  of  the  seven  vowels  had  been  devised 
prior  to  the  Thera  tablets;  if,  therefore,  the  same  rate  of  development  obtained, 
we  must  allow  3  or  4  centuries  at  least  for  the  introduction  and  general  prevalence 
of  these  vowels. 

"  That  digamma  was  in  use  when  the  Iliad  was  composed  (cir.  1000  B.  C.) 
is  seen  from  the  laws  of  scansion,  as  e.  g.  in  the  word,  Foinos,  wine,  where  digam- 
ma is  required  to  avoid  hiatus.  The  letter  had  however  dropped  out  prior  to 
the  establishment  of  the  received  text.  A.  Gercke,  a  high  authority,  holds  that 
the  Greek  vowels  were  introduced  about  iioo-iooo  B.  C. :  "Noch  etwas  hoeher 
hinauf  wuerden  wir  durch  eine  Hypothese  Larfeld's  gefuert  wenn  sie  sich  als 
gesichert  erwiese:  das  dekadische  Ziflerungssystem  fuer  i — 900  sei  um  800  in 
Milet  erfunden  worden  und  setzte  das  vollstaendige  Alphabet  mit  Phi,  chi,  psi, 
omega  voraus  und  andererseits  noch  F  und  0  als  lebendige  Laute.  .  .  .  Viel- 
leicht  darf  man  hierbei  sogar  now  etwas  hoeher  hinauf  gehen  oder  mindestens  den 
Beginn  des  Schwundes  um  rund  2  Jahrhunderte  aelter  setzen,  als  Thum  es  tut 
(also   ca.   1 100  statt   900)"  (Zur   Gesch.   d.   aelt.   Griech.   Al.,   in  Hermes,    1906). 

"  "The  original  Semitic  names  appear  to  have  become  confused  in  the  course 
of  transmission  to  the  Greeks  and  to  have  been  applied  by  them  to  the  wrong 
signs.  The  name  zeta  appears  to  correspond  to  the  name  tsade,  but  the  letter 
appears  to  be  taken  from  the  letter  zayin.  Xi,  which  seems  to  be  the  same  word 
as  shin,  represents  the  letter  samekh.  San,  which  is  probably  derived  from 
zayin,  represents  tsade.  Sigma,  which  may  be  identified  with  samekh,  represents 
shin."     (E.  M.   Thompson,  Handb.  Greek  and  Lot.  Palaeog.). 


136  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

The  proof  that  alphabetic  writing  was  practised  in  Greece 
in  the  Homeric  period  is  overwhelming.  Three  lines  of  argu- 
ment, namely  the  evidence  of  the  inscriptions,  the  laws  of  de- 
velopment of  the  letters  and  the  state  of  writing  in  the  Homeric 
age,  all  converge  to  the  same  point,  that  is,  that  the  Phoenician 
alphabet  must  have  entered  Greece  anywhere  between  1200  and 
1000.  If,  further,  allowance  be  made  for  the  development  of 
the  Semitic  or  Phoenician  characters  from  their  earliest  proto- 
types to  the  finished  forms  of  the  Moabite  Stone,  the  conclu- 
sion is  inevitable  that  the  Semitic  script  was  devised  about  1500 
B.  C.,  and  possibly  somewhat  earlier. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PROVISIONAL  THEORY  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
SEMITIC   (PHOENICIAN)   ALPHABET. 

Of  the  above  theories  of  the  origin  of  the  Phcenician  alphabet 
(chap  VI),  some  drop  out  of  consideration.  That  the  Cretan,  Cypri- 
ote and  ]\Iycenaean  syllabaries  originated  in  the  beginning  of  the  second 
pre-Christian  millennium  is  clear,  but  they  probably  had  no  direct  in- 
fluence on  the  Phoenician  (or  more  correctly)  Semitic  alphabet.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  Hittite  script ;  the  non-discovery  of  the  key 
to  the  language  and  script  leaves  slender  support  for  this  view.  In  the 
consideration  of  the  subject  we  distinguish  sharply  between  two  ques- 
tions :  £rst,  the  elements  underlying  and  suggesting  the  alphabet ;  and, 
second,  the  people  who  really  invented  and  introduced  the  alphabet. 
The  question  is  not,  From  whom  did  the  inventors  get  their  material 
and  working  hypothesis,  but  who  were  the  inventors?  Thus  under- 
stood, the  question  is  narrowedi  to  the  Aramaeans,  Babylonians  and 
Phoenicians.  Much  can  be  said  in  favor  of  the  Aramaic  origin  (see 
McCurdy  above).  From  the  time  of  Laban  (Gen.  31:  47)  to  that  of 
Hezekiah  (Is.  36:  11),  and  later,  one  or  another  of  the  Aramaic  dialects 
was  a  kind  of  lingua  franca  in  the  lands  between  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates.  Nevertheless  it  would  appear  that  the  Aramaeans  came 
upon  the  stage  of  history  too  late  to  meet  the  conditions  of  the  prob- 
lem. 

A.    DELITZSCH's     theory    of    the    BABYLONIAN     ORIGIN. 

A  new  turn  has  been  given  to  the  Babylonian  theory  by  Friedrich 
Delitzsch.^  Be  modestly  claims  that  his  "Enthraetselun^'  of  the 
origin  of  the  cuneiform  script  has  thrown  new  light  "auf  das  andere 
grosse  palaeographische  Raethsel  des  Ursprungs  des  Phcenizischen  Al- 
phabets" {op  cit.,  p.,  221).  That  the  Phoenician  script  sustains  some 
relation  to  the  Babylonian  is  probable,  says  D.,_"for  all  attempts  to 
derive  the  Phoenician  characters  from  the  Egyptian  hieratic  or  hiero- 
glyphic have  ended  in  a  complete  fiasco;  and  yet  the  Phoenician  script 
cannot  be  an  absolutely  new  one.  It  arose  in  Canaan,  i.  e.,  in  a  land 
which  on  the  one  hand  stood  for  centuries  in  the  closest  political  and 
cultural  relations  with  Egypt;  and  in  which  on  the  other,  just  pre- 
viously, as  the  Amama  Letters  show,  the  Babylonian  script  was  the 
medium  of  diplomatic  correspondence.  Nothing  is  a  priori  more  pro- 
bable than  that  the  Phoenician  or  Canaanite  alphabet  sustains  a  con- 
nection of  some  sort  with  the  two  oldest  systems  of  writing".  _  D. 
holds  that  the  Canaanitish  script-makers  adopted  from  the  Egyptians 
"the  great  principle  of  acrophony"  and  from  the  Babylonians  the  prin- 


1  Die  Entstehung  des  Aeltesten   Schriftsystems,    oder   der   Ursprung  der  Keil- 
schriftzeichen.     Dargelegt  von   Friedr.    Delitzsch.     Leipzig.      1897. 

187 


138  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

ciple  of  expressing  objects  and  ideas  by  simple  graphic  figures.  He 
considers  it  highly  significant  that  fifteen  of  the  twenty-two  Phoenician 
letters  represent  objects  which  find  expression  in  the  Babylonian  script. 
These  are  the  signs  for  ox  (aleph),  house  (beth),  hump  of  camel 
(gimel),  door  (daleth),  hook  (waw),  fence  (heth),  hand  (yodh),  palm 
of  hand  (kaph),  water  (mem),  fish  (nun),  eye  (ayin),  mouth  (pe), 
fish-net  (tsadhe),  head  (resh),  mark  or  cross  (tau).  He  argues,  fur- 
ther, that  the  names  of  the  letters  are  for  the  most  part  of  Babylonian 
origin. 

According  to  D.,  the  Phoenician  forms  of  t'he  letters  might  easily 
have  been  differentiated  from  the  Babylonian  characters.  He  regards 
it  as  significant  "that  both  the  Bab.  and  the  Phoen.  script  distinguish 
between  a  hand  with  fore-arm  (yodh)  and  a  hand  simply  (kaph)", 
which  implies  some  connection  and  influence.  He  adds :  "Ix.  is  univer- 
sally admitted  th'at  the  Phoen.  aleph  resembles  in  rough  outline  an 
ox-head.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  Phoenicians  independently  of  the 
Babylonians  hit  upon  the  idea  of  representing  an  ox  by  the  sign  of 
an  ox-he-ad".  Delitzsch  accordingly  occupies  a  middle  position  be- 
tween the  rival  theories  of  an  Egyptian  and  a  Babylonian  incentive, 
granting  that  the  inventor  (s)  had  a  knowledge  of  both  systems  and 
chose  from  each  whatever  was  available.  Herein  he  is  sustained  by 
other  recent  invesitigators.  Zimmern  says :  "I  believe  at  all  events 
with  Del.  that  in  this  case  an  external  historical  connection  exists  in 
the  selection  of  letter-objects  between  the  Phoenician  alphabet  and  the 
order  of  the  original  Babylonian  signs".  Fries  (who  inclines  to  the 
Mycenaean  hypothesis)  writes:  "I  consider  it  quite  probable  that  the 
Phoen. -Canaanite-Hebrews  gave  to  the  Mycenaean  characters,  names 
suggested  by  the  original  cuneiform  signs,  which  on  the  one  hand  were 
familiar  through  centturies  of  use  and  on  the  other  met  Phoenician  con- 
ditions. On  this  hypothesis,  the  views  of  Kluge,  Delitzsch  and  Zim- 
mern are  reconciled"  {Zeitsch.  d.  Deut.  Palaes.  Ver.,  XXH). 

B.    THE    NAMES    AND   FORMS  OF  THE   PHOENICIAN   LETTERS. 

I.  The  Problem  of  the  Letter-Names. 

What  is  the  connection  between  the  names  of  the  letters  and  the 
concepts  denoted  by  them?  Had  the  letters  aleph  and  the  rest,  originally 
a  form  corresponding  to  the  pictures  of  the  objects,  or  did  the  words 
merely  happen  to  have  the  initial  sound  of  the  letters,  and  were  the 
latter  mtvt  Voces  memoriales?  In  the  latter  event  no  inference  can 
be  drawn;  in  the  former,  it  is  possible  to  construct  an  argument  re- 
garding the  origin  of  the  letters.''  If  the  transmitted  names  repre- 
sented accurately  the  original  orthography,  one  could  reason  back  to 
the  probable  origin  of  the  characters.  But  allowance  must  be  made 
for  changes  in  the  transmission.  "Die  ueberlieferten  konsonantischen 
Bestandteile  sind  nicht  so,  wie  sie  etwa  der  Erfinder  geschrieben  hat, 
sondem  die  Formen  enthalten  phonetische  Wiedergaben  der  Namen 
au9  ejner  Zeit,  als  diese  nach  langem  Gebrauche  zum  Teil  abgerieben 
und  infolge  des  mangelhaften  Verstaendnisses  ihrer  Bedeutung  ver- 
stuemmelt  worden  waren"  (Lidz.  op.  cit.,  126).     Nevertheless  "the  pic- 

'  Noeldeke,  Delitzsch,  Lidzbarski,  Zimmern,  Halevy,  Ball  and  Peters  have 
recently  discussed  the  subject.  See  Noeldeke:  Die  Semitischen  Buchstabennamen ; 
and    Lidzbarski,    Die  Namen   d.    Alphabetbuchstaben    (EpJiem.    II,    125-39). 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEMITIC    (PHOENICIAN)   ALPHABET.         I39 

tures  of  the  characters  in  the  oldest  texts  do  not  vary  essentially  from 
the  original"  (ibid).  If  the  form  and  significance  of  the  proto-types 
could  be  determined,  new  light  would  be  thrown  on  the  origin  of  the 
alphabet.  It  is  possible  that  the  letter-names  were  chosen  without  ref- 
erence to  the  pictures  of  the  objects;  but  yet  "the  more  a  connection 
between  picture  and  name  is  established  the  more  probable  it  becomes 
th^t  the  connection  is  not  accidental,  but  designed,  {.  e,  the  picture  actu- 
ally represented  the  idea  which  the  name  designates"  (Lidz.).  So  too 
Gesenius  Heb.  Gram,  (latest  ed.).  The  majority  of  the  letters  have 
well  defined  meanings ;  but  the  etymology  and  signification  of  nine  or 
ten  letters  are  doubtful,  and  even  the  language  from  which  some  of 
them  were  derived  is  in  dispute.  The  possibility,  therefore,  exists  that 
the  inventors  drew  on  sources  other  than  Egyptian  and  Babylonian. 
We   discuss  merely  the  disputed  letters. 

2.  Meaning  of  the  Disputed  Letters.^"^ 

He,  a  window,  traditional  view  (Hupfeld,  Boettcher,  Gesenius, 
Koenig,  etc.).  C.  J.  Ball:  from  archaic  Babylonian  he,  a  house.  J.  P. 
Peters :  a  meaningless  sound,  but  no  letter-name.  Lidzb. :  "Die  N.  Se- 
mitischen  Sprachen  weisen  kein  passendes  mit  he  beginnendes  Wort 
dafuer  auf"   (Ephem.,  II,  136). 

JVazif,  a  hook,  (Taylor,  Green,  Gesenius,  Delitzsch  Fried.,  etc.). 
Ball :  archaic  Bab.  zvu,  wood,  or  we,  voice.  Peters :  not  a  word  origin- 
ally, but  the  sound  of  u  or  v.  Del. :  "Von  den  kananaischen  Schrift- 
bildern  selbststaendig  ersonnen"   (Entsteh.  229). 

Zayin,  a  weapon  (so  traditionally).  Peters:  not  a  word,  but  a 
syllable  ze  or  sai.  Lidzb. :  "Das  Griechische  Zeta  scheint  mir  fuer 
das  Zeichen  besser  zu  passen  als  zayin.  Denn  als  Wafife  laesst  sich 
das  Bild  (vid.  our  Chart,  VII,  7)  nicht  erklaeren,  wohl  aber  kann  man 
es  als  Olivenzweig  auffassen"   (op.  cit.,  132). 

Heth,  a  fence  (traditional  view).  Del.:  Chetu,  from  the  Bab.  a 
virall  or  enclosure.  Ball :  Archaic  Bab.  hyt,  stylus.  Peters :  no  such 
word  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  perhaps  merely  a  syllable.  Lidzb. :  "Auch 
fuer  cheth  wurde  bis  jetzt  keine  einwandtsfreie  Erklaerung  gegeben.  .  . 
Chetu  ist  nur  babylonisch  und  an  einen  babylonischen  Ursprung  des 
Alphabets  ist  nicht  zu  denken"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  138).  But  may  not  a  Phoe- 
nician, conversant  with  the  Babylonian,  have  chosen  letter-names  from 
this  quarter? 

Teth,  snake,  serpent  (old  view).  Ball:  From  archaic  Babylonian. 
Peters :  not  a  word  in  any  known  language.  Lidzb. :  "Ich  sehe  in  die- 
sem  Bilde  (chart  IX,  7)  einen  Ballen,  ein  Kolli,  und  im  Namen  teth 
ein  Phcenizisches  teeth,  vom  Stamme  fan  (op.  cit.,  128^. 

Lamedh,  ox-goad  (old  view).  Ball:  from  Bab.  lam,  to  plant, 
plough.  The  archaic  Phoenician  form  clearly  resembles  an  ox-goad; 
but  the  Hebrew  for  this  would  be  malmad  of  maimed,  not  lamed. 
According  to  Lidzb.  the  m  of  maimed  was  elided  "trotz  der  akrophoni- 
schen  Tendenz",  and  the  stem  beginning  with  I,  dhosen. 

Samekh,  post  or  prop  (traditional  view).  But  this  does  not  cor- 
respond with   the  archaic   form  of   the  letter    (chart,   XV,   7)     Ball: 


3-a      See  C.  J.  Ball  in  Light  from  the  East  and  J.   P.   Peters  in  review  of  sec- 
ond edition  of  Taylor's  Alphabet,  Jour.  Am.  Orient.  Soc.  XXII,  p.,    176  seq. 


140  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

archaic  Bab.  Sam,  herbage.    Lidzb. :  'Ich  fasse  das  Bild  als  Baum  oder 
Zweig  auf". 

Tsadhe,  fish-hook,  or  javelin  (common  view).  The  meanings, 
fish-hook,  scythe,  nose,  rest  on  comparatively  late  inscriptions.  Starting 
with  the  form  on  the  Moabite  Stone,  Lidzb.  sees  "in  diesem  Zeichen 
eine  Treppe  und   (ich)   leite  den  Namen  vom  Stamm  tsa'adh  ab". 

Koph,  back  of  head,  knot,  ear,  eye  of  needle  etc.  Peters :  Not  a 
word  in  any  language.  Latest  view  of  Lidzb. :  "Ich  erklaere  nun  den 
Namen  als  qiioh'a,  Helm,  Kopf,  was  phoeniziscli  etwa  qoh'  gesprochen 
wurde"  {op.  cit.,  133) •  Since  heth  sometimes  became  koph,  it  is  pos- 
sible that  the  Phoenicians  already  wrote  koph  instead  of  koh. 

Resh,  head  (usual  view).  But  in  Phoen.  and  Heb.,  head  is  rosh, 
in  Amarna  Letters  rush,  in  Greek  rho.  The  difiference,  though  slight, 
is  still  unexplained.  Lidzb.  suggests  that  the  name  underwent  change 
in  the  transmission  and  finally  took  the  Aramaic  form,  —  the  most 
probable  view. 

3.  Theories  of  the  Origin  of  the  Letter-Names  and  Forms. 

As  seen  above,  Delitzsch  derives  15  of  the  letters  and  forms  direct- 
ly from  the  Babylonian,  including  some  of  the  disputed  letters.  The 
original  Bab.  sign  for  gimel,  says  D.,  meant  to  hend  or  how  (Sum.  gam, 
gammu),  and  was  employed  as  an  ideogram  for  the  hump  of  a  camel 
(Chart  1,3),  just  as  the  Bab.  sign  tab,  tazv,  (Chart,  I,  22;  XII,  22)  cor- 
responds to  the  Phoenician  Taw. 

Both  Lidzbarski  and  Halevy  challenge  some  of  Dejitzsch's  claims. 
The  former  remarks  that  the  Egyptian  script  also  distinguishes  be- 
tween "the  hand  with  forearm"  and  "the  palm  of  the  hand";  the  sign 
of  an  ox  occurs  in  the  Cretan  script,  and  it  resembles  somewhat  the 
Phoenician;  and  the  earliest  form  of  gimel  is  probably  the  first  of 
the  three  given  in  our  Chart  (col.  I,  3).  That  the  archaic  Phoeni- 
cian form  of  nun  sustains  any  resemblance  to  a  fish  is  denied  by 
Lidzb.;  the  fish  has  always  been  represented,  not  by  a  perpendicular, 
but  by  a  horizontal  figure,  as  in  the  Egyptian.  It  were  more  correct 
to  see  in  the  Phoenician  the  figure  of  a  serpent,  as  in  the  Egyptian. 
Lidzb.  questions  that  the  archaic  Phoen.  character  for  daleth  resembles 
even  remotely  a  door;  but  his  own  suggestion  that  it  denotes  "nur 
die  weibliche  Brust,  also  dad",  is  equally  remote. 

Halevy  ridicules  and  belittles  Delitzsch's  hypothesis  at  every 
point :  "En  somme,  I'alphabet  phenicien  comprendrait  deux  lettres 
egyptiennes,  six  lettres  babyloniennes,  et  le  reste  serait  indigene  ou  d'une 
origine  inconnue.  Une  ecriture  si  eclectique  au  deuxieme  millenaire 
avant  notre  ere  n'est  pas  bien  vraisemblable."  (L'Origine  des  Ecritures 
cuneiforme  et  Phenicienne,  p.,  4).  Under  this  view,  says  H.,  the  alphabet 
would  be  "un  melange  de  signes  egyptiens  et  cuneiformes  lineaires. 
Les  Pheniciens  auraient  emprunte  aux  hieroglyphes  les  signes  du  lion 
(lahoi)  pour  /,  le  signe  tot  pour  t,  et  le  grand  principe  de  I'acrologie, 
tandis  qu'ils  apprirent  des  scribes  a  produire  comme  expressions  gra- 
phiques  des  figures  simples  plutot  mdiquees  que  formees  et  a  lignes 
aussi  droites  que  possible"  (p.,  2).  Halevy  concludes  that  "Dans  une 
nouvelle  edition,  ce  vilain  chapitre  [sic!]  doit  disparaitre  a  tout  jamais" 
(p.,   19). 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEMITIC    (PHOENICIAN)   ALPHABET.         I4I 

Attention  must  be  directed  to  another  hypothesis  of  the  Babylonian 
origin  of  the  letter-names,  advanced  by  C.  J.  Ball  and  designated  here 
as  the  "Semitized  Sumerian".  "The  monosyllabic  /orm  of  almost  all 
the  names  agrees  with  our  theory  that  they  are  'partially  Semitized 
(imperfectly  triliteralized)  Sumerian  terms"  (Light  from  the  East,  22,6). 
Ball  claims  that  his  theory  "retains  and  accounts  for  the  names  of 
the  letters".  See  assumed  proto-types  (Chart,  col.  I).  Thus  bet 
Phoen.  (XII,  2)  is  sufficiently  like  I,  2,  ba,  bi,  to  split,  (Sumerian  bad, 
bid)  to  suggest  a  connection.  "The  difference  of  shape  between  the 
Bab.  sign  and  the  Phoen.  is  merely  a  variation  for  convenience  of  writ- 
ing. The  latter  may  be  called  a  one-stroke  adaptation  of  the  former. 
As  to  the  name  beth,  b — t  is  the  common  Semitic  term  for  house. 
The  original  sound  of  the  symbol  becomes  its  name  in  the  Phoen. 
alphabet ;  the  original  meaning  is  naturally  exchanged  for  a  familiar 
Semitic  one".  By  reference  to  the  chart  one  can  see  the  supposed 
evolution  of  the  Phoen.  forms  from  the  Archaic  Bab.  (cols  II,  III,  etc.). 
But,  assuming  that  an  alphabet-maker  in  the  15th  cent.  B.  C,  wished  to 
■select  from  other  scripts  it  seems  almost  self-evident  that  he  would 
select  from,  familiar,  i.  e.  contemporaneous,  rather  than  from  unfa- 
miliar archaic  forms.  Under  this  view  the  same  objection  lies  against 
Ball's  view  as  against  any  other  based  on  archaic  forms. 

We  find  ourselves,  however,  in  accord  with  a  suggestion  offered  by 
Ball,  namely  that  now  one  and  now  another  word  was  used  acrophon- 
ically  until  the  alphabet  assumed  its  present  stereotyped  form.  "For 
an  indefinite  period  the  various  related  Bab.  symbols  were  used  indif- 
ferently as  alphabetic  representatives.  .  .  This  would  be  the  first 
step ;  and  it  seems  to  account  for  the  varying  forms  of  the  Phoen. 
signs,  which  need  not  all  be  deduced  from  a  single  ancestor,  but  may 
preserve  traces  of  several.  One  locality,  even  one  individual  scribe, 
might  prefer  one  form  of  a  letter,  another  another,  until  at  last  by 
the  intercourse  of  commerce  and  diplomacy  a  form  would  result  ex- 
hibiting a  likeness  to  all,  but  not  exactly  identical  with  any  of  the 
proto  types"   {op.  cit.,  p.,  2Z7). 

The  principle  here  suggested  by  Ball  is  an  important  one  and 
supports  our  contention  that  the  alphabet  was  in  process  of  formation 
for  many  centuries. 

Finally,  "Twelve  of  the  letter-names  are  words  with  meanings, 
all  of  them  indicating  simple  objects,  6  of  the  12  being  parts  of  the 
body.  The  objects  denoted  by  the  other  six  names  —  ox,  house,  door, 
water,  fish  and  cross  —  clearly  do  not  belong  to  any  people  in  a  no- 
madic state,  but  in  a  settled,  town-abiding  population.  Of  these  12 
significant  words,  11  are  words  which  may  be  found  almost  in  the  same 
form  in  the  Bab.  syllabaries.  .  .  .  This  suggests  a  Bab.  origin,  and  it 
would  seem  probable  that  the  forms  of  the  letters  were  derived  from 
the  same  source  as  the  names"  (J.  P.  Peters,  0/).  cit.).  On  the  other 
hand  "no  syllabary  with  which  we  are  acquainted  seems  to  give  us 
satisfactory  proto-types  for  the  Phoen.  alphabet,  either  in  the  forms  of 
the  letters,  or  their  names"  (Peters).  The  fact  that  the  meaning  of 
at  least  eight  letter-names  cannot  be  determined  (six  of  them  words 
in  no  language)  implies  that  the  names  and  perhaps  the  characters 
originated  in  a  period  so  remote  that  history  preserves  no  record. 


142  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

C.    THE    ASTRO-MYTHOLOGICAL    HYPOTHESIS. 

Recently,  Hommel  and  Winckler,  contemporaneously,  yet  inde- 
pendently, have  suggested  the  hypothesis  that  the  starry  heavens,  the 
signs  of  the  zodiac,  gave  rise  to  the  characters  of  the  original  alphabet. 
Though  differing  in  detail,  both  contend  that  the  names  and  order  of 
the  letters  are  of  astronomical  origin.  This  primitive,  pre-Phoenician 
script  arose  among  a  non-Semitic  people,  the  Sumerians,  as  early  as 
20OO  B.  C.  and  spread  in  two  great  branches,  the  Phoenician  and  the 
Arabian,  over  the  whole  West- Semitic  world.  In  order  to  understand 
Hommel's  present  views  it  must  be  recalled  that  he  divides  the  Semitic 
peoples,  languages  and  religion  into  "Babylonian  and  West-Semitic". 
Having  presented  the  reasons  for  this  classification,  he  argues  that  the 
alphabet  likewise  furnishes  proofs  of  the  same  view :  "One  may  desig- 
nate these  as  astrological  proofs,  since  here  not  merely  the  culture 
of  the  Moon-god  and  that  of  the  Sun  and  certain  planets  (Saturn, 
Mercury,  Venus),  but  the  whole  astrological  system  of  the  Chaldeans 
forms  the  basis This  alphabet,  from  which  also  the  South- 
Arabic  branched  off,  arose  in  the  regions  whence  the  Canaanites  orig- 
inally came,  /.  e.  Chaldea On  phonetic  grounds,  the  Egyptian 

origin  is  simply  impossible;  nor  could  the  inventors  have  been  Semites, 
for  the  underlying  body  of  sounds  is  far  too  poor".^ 

Hommel  then  arranges  the  Phoen.  letters  in  two  columns  (the  di- 
viding line  being  between  kaph  and  lamed)  and  proceeds :  "Heth  was 
differentiated  from  he,  teth  from  ayin  (originally  a  circle,  O),  das 
tsadhe  aus  samekh,  und  endlich  das  Quoph  (Lat.  q)  aus  dem  ayin,  in- 
dem  durch  den  das  ayin  bezeichnenden  Kreis  einfach  ein  senkrechter 
Strich  gezogen  wurde.  The  proofs  for  the  origin  in  Chaldea,  lie  in 
the  quite  evident  derivation  of  different  signs  of  the  alphabet  in  ques- 
tion from  the  old  Babylonian,  i  e.,  Sumarian  cuneiform  and  in  fact 
under  circumstances  excluding  chance.  Thus  e.  g.  an  oval  in  the  cunei- 
form has  the  syllabic  value  hi  (which  was  used  also  in  loan-words  for 
West-Semitic  ayin)  and  ti  (Sum.  di),  and  in  the  West-Sem.  alphabet 
the  circle  denotes  ayin  and  teth  (and  by  differentiation  also  taw). 
Ja  es  gibt  in  dem  ca.  2000  v.  Chr.  (in  der  Hammurabizeit)  ueblichen 
Silbenzeichensystem  Faelle,  wo  geradezu  ein  Uebergang  zu  Buchstaben- 
zeichen  vorliegt,  wie  z.  B.  beim  Hauchlaut  ch  oder  Aleph,  wo  fuer  ach, 
ich,  uch,  ein  einziges  Zeichen  in  Gebrauch  ist,  und  dieses  Zeichen  be- 
steht  wiederum  aus  dem  ovalen  Kreis,  dem  sonst  der  Werth  chi  eignet, 
nur  dass  hier  ein  Zeichen  eingeschrieben  wird,  das  mit  dem  West- 
Semitischen  Zeichen  fuer  h  nahezu  identisch  ist ;  oder  das  Zeichen  pi, 
welches  gerade  um  2000  v.  Chr.  auch  zur  Wiedergabe  eines  einfachen 
w  (im  Anlaut  ;)  verwendet  wird  und  woraus  sowohl  das  West- 
Semitische  Zeichen  fuer  w  als  auch  das  fuer  ;  entstanden  ist.  It  may 
yet  be  observed  that  in  general  in  all  cases  where  no  vowel  follows  a 
consonant,  the  cuneiform  in  fact  represents  a  transition  to  simple  alpha- 
betic signs,  as,  e.  g.  in  the  syllabic  signs,  ab,  ib,  ub,  ag,  ig,  ug,  etc.,  since 
a  word  written  ka-al-bu,  but  pronounced  kalbu  could  be  transcribed 
simply  ka-l-bu.  In  this  direction  we  must  look  for  the  derivation 
of  the  remaining  signs :  thus  the  West-Semitic  sign  for  k  clearly  came 


•■'  Hommel,    Grundr.   d.  Geographie  u.   Geschich.   d.  Alien  Orients,  p.,   97.     See 
also   H's.    Gesch.   Bab.   u.  Assy.,  pp.,  50 — 3,   and   Aufs.  u.  Abh. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEMITIC    (PHOENICIAN)    ALPHABET.         I43 

from  the  old  Bab.  sign  ig;  likewise  p  from  ib  (which  latter  could  also 
denote  an  open  mouth,  cf.  pe,  mouth)"  (Grundr.,  p.,  98-9). 

D.    SEMITES    AND    SEMITISM    IN    EGYPT. 

Neither  Delitzsch,  Hommel,  Ball,  nor  any  Semitist  or  Panbabylon- 
ist  (Winckler)  holds  that  the  Sumerians  or  Babylonians  actually  de- 
vised the  Phcen.  alphabet,  but  merely  that  the  underlying  elements  are 
Sumerian  or  Babylonian,  and  not  Egyptian.  The  theory  that  the  alpha- 
bet was  suggested  by  the  Egyptian  hieratic  is  unpopular  to-day  in 
Semitic  circles;  nevertheless  it  demands  consideration.  The  fact  that 
there  was  constant  communication  between  Egypt  and  Palestine  be- 
tween 2500  and  1400  B.  C.  (see  above,  ch.  IV)  and  that  Egypt  was  in 
fact  Semitized,  is  admitted  by  all  Egyptologists.  During  the  waning 
power  of  the  Pharaohs  of  the  13th  and  14th  dynasties,  Egypt  became 
an  easy  prey  for  the  ever  watchful  neig'hbors  on  the  N.  East.  "The 
Syrians  and  the  people  belonging  to  the  nomad  tribes  of  the  desert 
had  been  quietly  settling  in  tflie  Delta  for  centuries,  and  had  been 
making  themselves  owners  of  the  lands  and  estates.  For  some  reason 
which  is  unknown  to  us  the  immigration  of  the  foreigners  from  the  East 
increased  largely,  and  their  kinsmen  (who  were  already  in  the  coun- 
try) making  common  cause  with  them,  they  seized  the  land  and  set 
up  a  king  over  them"  (Budge,  Hist.  Egypt,  III,  132).  Again  the  Pha- 
raohs at  an  early  date  invaded  Palestine  and  Syria.  Thus  there  was 
constant  intercourse  between  these  lands. 

I.  The  Hyksos  in  Egypt. 

Josephus,  quoting  from  Manetho,  speaks  of  a  people  called 
"Hyksos"  who  ruled  in  Egypt  during  three  dynasties.  It  is  certam 
that  foreigners  sat  on  the  throne  of  the  Pharaohs'  during  several  cen- 
turies. Breasted  concludes  that  "the  Hyksos  were  an  Asiatic  people 
who  ruled  Egypt  from  their  stronghold  of  Avaris  in  the  Delta"  (Hist. 
Egypt,  p.,  216).  It  is  generally  allowed  that  the  Hyksos  were  Semites. 
"That'  it  was  a  Semitic  empire  we  cannot  doubt,  in  view  of  the  Mane- 
thonian  tradition  and  the  subsequent  conditions  in  Syria-Palestme. 
Moreover  the  scarabs  of  a  Pharaoh  who  evidently  belonged  to  the  Hyk- 
sos time,  give  his  name  as  Jacob-her  or  possibly  Jacob-El,  and  it  is  not 
impossible  that  some  chief  of  the  Jacob-tribes  of  Israel  for  a  time 
gained  the  leadership  in  this  obscure  age.  Such  an  incident  would 
account  surprisingly  well  for  the  entrance  of  these  tribes  into  Egypt, 
which  on  any  hypothesis  must  have  taken  place  about  this  age ;  and  in 
that  case  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  will  have  been  but  a  part  of  the  Beduin 

allies  of  the  Kadesh  or  Hyksos  empire Likewise  the  naive 

assumption  of  Josephus,  who  identifies  the  Hyksos  with  the  Hebrews, 
may  thus  contain  a  kernel  of  truth,  however  incidental"  (Breasted, 
op.  cit.,  220). 

The  duration  of  the  Hyksos  supremacy  is  undetermined,  Breasted 
allowing  about  200  years,   Petrie  500. 

2.  Egyptian  Language  Semitized. 

The  settlement  of  so  many  Semitic  people  in  the  Nile  Valley  had 
inevitably  a  twofold  effect:  Urst,  the  Semites  learned  the  Eg^^tian 
language  and  script;  second,  each  language,  adopting  loan-words  from 


144  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  other,  was  greatly  enriched  in  its  vocabulary.  Brugsch  vvrites: 
"The  memorial  stones,  coffins,  and  papyri  found  in  the  cemeteries  all 
testify  to  Semites  who  were  settled  in  the  Nile  valley  ...  as  also  do 
they   show    the   inclination   of   the   people   to   give   their   children   half 

Semitic  and  half  Egyptian  names The  commercial  interest 

contributed  to  introduce  into  Egypt  foreign  expressions,  as  may  be 
shown  by  siis  for  horse,  agalota  for  chariot,  carnal  for  camd 
and  ahir,  bull;  also  rosh,  head,  sar,  king,  heit,  house,  hah,  door,  hir, 
spring,  hirkata,  lake,  ketem,  gold,  sJialom,  to  greet,  rom,  to  be  high, 
barak,  to  bless,  and  many  others"  (p.,  98.)  Many  Egyptian  names  of 
places  are  clearly  Hebrew  or  Semitic.  Thus  Ta-Mazor  is  the  Hebrew 
Mizraim;  Thuku  is  Succoth;  Pa-Tmu,  the  city  of  Tmu,  is  the  Bib- 
lical  Pithom.     Maktol  is  the  Hebrew   Migdol,  a  fortress. 

It  was  in  this  period  (2000-1500)  that  the  need  arose  for  a  sim- 
plified alphabet  such  as  the  Phoenician  for  the  transcription  of  Egyp- 
tian and  Semitic  proper  names  and  for  writing  the  Canaanite  and  He- 
brew language. 

R    CANAANITE  OR  PHOENICIAN    ORIGIN    OF   THE   ALPHABET. 

The  Phoenician  alphabet  arose  in  the  time  of  the  Hyksos  rule  in 
Egypt,  and  the  question  arises  whether  some  Hebrew,  Canaanite  or 
Phoenician   was   not   the   inventor  adapter. 

I.  The  Phoenicians  in  History. 

The  ancestors  of  the  Phoenicians  were  probably  a  part  of  the  great 
Amorite  or  Canaanite  stock  which  in  the  third  millennium  B.  C.  mi- 
grated from  the  East  to  the  West-land.  "That  this  migration  was  be- 
fore the  third  millennium  may  be  argued  from  the  Phoenician  tradition 
preserved  by  Herodotus  that  the  founding  of  the  temple  and  city  of 
Tyre  took  place  about  2750  B.  C.  .  .  .  That  the  settlement  was  much 
earlier  than  this  is  probable"   (Goodspeed,  Bib  World,  VH,  p.,  463). 

The  Phoenicians  had  commercial  relations  with  foreign  peoples 
from  very  early  times.  "It  is  no  exaggeration  to  place  the  beginnings 
of  these  commercial  enterprises  in  the  year  2000  B.  C.  Creeping 
around  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor  or  striking  boldly  across  to  Cyprus  and 
thence  to  the  Aegean,  their  ships  landed  at  all  points  where  the  country 
was  attractive  and  opportunities  for  trade  were  given.  Thasos  with 
its  gold  mines  and  Cythera  with  its  mussels  that  yielded  the  famous 
purple  dye  were  early  places  of  Phoenician  settlement  in  the  Aegean 
sea.  In  such  places  they  established  trading  posts  or  set  up  factories, 
where  the  products  of  the  region  were  most  easily  accessible.  They 
exchanged  for  these  the  more  finished  products  of  the  Orient,  the 
manufactures  of  Babylonia  and  Egypt"    (Goodspeed,  op  cit.,  p.,  465). 

2.  Relations  zcith  Egypt  in  Early   Times. 

The  relations  of  Egyptians  and  Phoenicians  were  varied  and  ex- 
tensive. "The  earliest  maritime  commerce  of  the  Phoenicians  was  prob- 
ably with  Cyprus,  Cilicia  and  Egypt.  .  .  .  Their  vessels  laid  them- 
selves alongside  the  wharves  which  lined  the  banks  of  the  great  river 
at  Pelusium,  Bubastis,  Zoan,  Memphis,  Sais,  Sebennytus.  At  Memphis 
they  were  allowed  to  make  a  settlement.  Jealous  as  the  Egyptians  were 
of   foreigners,   and  disposed   as   they  were  to   exclude  them  altogether 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEMITIC    (PHOENICIAN)   ALPHABET.         I45 

from  their  country,  they  were  so  won  upon  by  the  Phcenicians  as  not 
merely  to  carry  on  with  them  an  extensive  trade,  but  even  to  allow  them 
a  settlement  in  the  capital,  and  a  temple  in  which  they  could  worship 
their  own  gods"  (Rawlinson,  Story  of  Phoe.,  pp.,  56.  26). 

3.  Bearing  on  Phoenician  Origin  of  Alphabet. 

What  is  the  bearing  of  all  this  on  the  origin  of  the  alphabet? 
Two  conditions  that  must  be  met  are  fulfilled :  Urst,  the  Phoenicians  had 
absolute  need  of  some  script,  and  the  shorter  the  better,  to  carry  on 
their  business  transactions,  which  required  the  listing  of  many  varied 
articles ;  and  second,  the  commercial  class  must  be  supposed  to  have 
acquired  a  fair  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian  language  and  script.  This 
conjunction  of  circumstances  would  inspire  a  quick-witted  scribe,  who 
had  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  a  bilingual  script  to  devise  a  new  script 
by  the  selection  of  the  best  elements  in  the  old  ones.  It  is  established 
from  the  Papyrus  Ebers  that  already  in  the  i6th  century  Canaanite 
towns,  as  Sidon,  Gebal,  Berytus,  Sarepta,  stood  in  close  cultural  re- 
lation with  Egypt.  Byblos  is  often  referred  to  in  the  Egyptian  texts; 
and  its  antiquity  is  attested  by  the  classical  writers  who  call  it  the 
oldest  city  in  the  world.  (See  Movers,  Phoeniker,  III,  i;  Birt,  Das 
Antike  Buchwesen,  2:  /^y,  Krall,  Studien  z.  Gesch.  Alten  Aegyp.,  78). 
In  fact  it  is  probable  that  Greece  obtained  its  papyrus  originally,  not 
from  Egypt,  but  from  Byblos,  since  it  seems  now  made  out  that  the 
older  name  of  the  writing  material  was  Byblos,  whence  ultimately  the 
word  Bible  (book).  Theophrastus  was  the  first  to  use  the  term  papy- 
rus instead  of  Byblos. 

It  is  thus  an  established  historical  fact  that  Sidon,  Tyre,  Byblos-,. 
Berytus  and  other  Canaanite  or  Phoenician  centers  were  seats  of'  high 
culture  from  very  early  times  to  1200  B.  C,  and  that  all  the  conditions 
were  present  for  the  formation  of  the  Semitic  (Phoenician)  alphabet. 
Neither  in  Babylonia  nor  in  Arabia  nor  elsewhere  was  there  a  similar 
conjunction  of  circumstances  rendering  such  a  script  as  the  Phoenician 
a  necessity. 

That  the  inventor  of  the  alphabet  drew  largely  on  the  Egyptian 
script^  is  evident  from  many  considerations,  as  held  by  both  Lidz- 
barski  and  Delitzsch.  The  former  says  :  "The  Phoen.  alphabet  is  con- 
sonantal, the  cuneiform  script  is  syllabic;  the  alphabetic  characters 
are  pictures,  the  cuneiform  are  no  longer  such;  the  alphabet  is  acro- 
phonic,  the  cuneiform  is  not.  'On  the  other  hand  the  Egyptian  script 
is  acrophonic,  consonantal  and  pictorial.  Only  one  conclusion  is  open 
to  us.  Hence  I  see  in  the  alphabet  a  dependence  on  the  Egyptian 
script  and  the  creation  of  a  Canaanite  who  had  some  knowledge  of 
the  Egyptian  system"  (Ephem.  I,  134).  Delitzsch  also  allows  that  the 
distinctively  Canaanite  forms  of  some  of  the  letters  is  an  indication 
that  the  alphabet  was  of  Western  origin. 

4.  Influence  of  the  Egyptian  Hieratic. 

An  inscription  which  tends  to  confirm  the  de  Rouge  hypothesis  of 
Egyptian  influence  has  lately  come  to  light.  It  is  described  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  M.  G.  Kyle,  a  well-known  Egyptologist  of  Philadelphia,  in  the 
Recuil  de  Travaux,  from  which  we  quote.  In  the  Ghiza  Museum 
stands  a  wooden  coflfin,  labeled:  "Cercueil  d'un  Mentou-hotep  sur- 
momme  Bouaou,  tresorier  royal.    A  I'interieur,  figures  et  textes  mer- 

10 


146  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

vielleusement  conserves.  Deir  el-Bahari,  Xleme  dynastie".  Dr.  K. 
reproduces  in  parallel  columns  the  Hieroglyps,  the  Hieratic  of  the  Old 
Empire,  the  alphabetic  characters  of  the  Coffin  and  the  corresponding 
Phoen.  letters.  We  reproduce  in  our  Chart,  col.  VI,  the  Coffin  characters 
and  refer  to  the  other  cols,  for  comparison.  'The  inscription  as  a  whole 
is  a  curious  mixture  of  hieroglyphics,  conventional  forms  and  hieratic 
characters.  Moreover,  some  of  the  signs  used  are  represented  some- 
times, and  others  almost  invariably,  by  their  hieratic  equivalents ;  but 
not  all  the  signs  which  occur  are  represented  anywhere  in  the  inscrip- 
tion by  hieratic  equivalents.  And  the  hieratic  characters  used  are 
sometimes  distinctly  of  the  fixed  forms  of  the  hieratic  of  the  Old  Em- 
pire, and  sometimes  a  transitional  approach  thereto.  Concerning  these 
hieratic  signs  of  the  inscription,  five  strange  things  are  to  be  noted : 
(i)  There  are  clearly  transitional  forms,  representing  a  transitional 
period  of  Egyptian  writing;  (2)  Among  the  hieratic  characters  of  this 
inscription,  exactly  those  in  which  E.  de  Rouge  believed  he  had  found 
the  Egyptian  prototypes  of  the  Phoen.  alphabet  are  most  conspicuous; 
(3)  Among  the  hieratic  characters  representing  the  simplest  sourids 
and  commonly  called  letters,  it  is  just  those  of  de  Rouge's  list  which 
hiere  appear  most  regularly,  where  the  Egyptian  sound  represented 
thereby  was  required;  (4)  These  same  are  also  most  fixed  in  their 
forms,  and  those  the  final  forms  of  the  hieratic  of  the  Old  Empire; 
(5)  The  list  of  hieratic  alphabetic  characters  here  found  falls  short 
of  de  Rouge's  complete  list  by  some  significant  omissions." 

Dr.  K.  summarizes  his  extended  comparison :  "Of  the  21  alpha- 
"betic  prototypes  which  de  Rouge  selected  from  the  Egyptian  hieratic  of 
the  Old  Empire  thirteen  are  here  found  in  the  fully  developed  and 
final  hieratic  forms.  Two  others,  the  lioness  and  the  mouth  are  found 
in  transitional  forms.  Two,  the  tongs  and  the  knee  are  uncertain;  and 
four,  the  crane,  the  duck,  the  owl  and  the  lasso  are  not  found.  In  the 
work  of  identification,  the  two  certainly  transitional  forms,  the  lioness 
and  the  mouth  may  be  added  to  the  thirteen  which  are  fully  developed, 
making  in  all  fifteen  identifications.  Of  the  four  not  found,  and  the 
two  not  certainly  identified,  the  inscription  employs  the  crane  and  the 
owl  regularly  in  the  hieroglyphic  forms,  though  sometimes  slightly 
conventional,  and  the  duck  as  a  letter,  is  of  comparatively  infrequent 
occurrence  in  the  inscription.  Moreover,  the  tongs  and  the  lasso,  the 
knee,  the  crane  and  the  owl,  being  in  their  hieroglyphic  forms  or  with 
some  abbreviation  well  adapted  to  cursive  writing,  would  naturally, 
from  the  very  ease  with  which  they  were  made,  be  among  the  last  for 
which  fixed  hieratic  forms  would  be  developed". 

It  must  be  allowed  that  the  resemblance  between  some  of  the 
Coffin  and  the  Phoen.  characters  is  sufficiently  close  to  warrant  the 
inference  that  the  alphabet-makers  had  before  them,  if  not  these  char- 
acters, then  their  more  fully  developed  types.  "Since  this  inscription 
represents  a  period  when  just  these  identified  letters  and  not  others 
were  commonly  used,  as  their  fixed  hieratic  forms  evidence,  it  is  very 
near  this  period  that  the   Phoenicians  must  have  chosen  the  Egyptian 

characters  from  which  in  time  their  alphabet  was   developed 

That  the  Phoenicians  should  have  chosen  of  these  same  alphabetic  char- 
acters at  a  later  period  when  there  were  many  alternative  characters 
from  which  to  choose,  would  not  be  an  unreasonable  supposition,  but 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEMITIC    (PHOENICIAN)   ALPHABET.         I47 

that  in  such  circumstances  they  should  have  chosen  all  these,  and  just 
these  is,  on^  the  doctrine  of  probabilities,  well  nigh  impossible". 

A  few  observations  may  be  made  here:  (i)  None  of  the  assumed 
Sumerian  or  Babylonian  prototypes  exhibited  on  our  chart  or  yet  sug- 
gested, approach  so  uniformly  the  Moabite  characters,  as  those  of  the 
Coffin  inscription  —  a  presumptive  proof  that  some  type  of  the  Egyp- 
tian hieratic  was  the  basis  of  the  P roto- Phoenician ;  (2)  According  to 
the  principles  of  the  alphabetology  and  the  available  epigraphic  data, 
the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  a  slow  growth  (like  every  other  alphabet) 
from  provisional  and  tentative  forms  (here  called  the  Proto-Phoenician) 
until  it  reached  something  like  permanence  circa  1500  B  C,  being  re- 
garded in  its  early  history  as  a  Scrip  tura  privata  et  prof  ana,  and  en- 
countering the  opposition  of  the  securely  intrenched  cuneiform,  re- 
garded as  a  Scriptura  publica  et  sacra;  (3)  The  prototypes  of  the 
Phoenician  (as  Hommel,  Weber,  Ball  and  Delitzsch  have  shown)  go 
back  undoubtedly  to  2000  B.  C,  but  only  in  the  intercourse  between 
Egyptians  and  Canaanites  (Phoenicians)  do  we  find  an  adequate  Motif 
for  the  invention  of  such  a  script  as  the  Phoenician  (see  further  pp.  150 
— 3)  ;  (4)  Though  ithe  Coffin  inscription  is  probably  of  earlier  date  than 
that  in  which  we  place  the  origin  of  the  alphabet,  all  the  conditions 
would  be  met  on  the  assumption  of  a  long  use  of  the  transitional  hier- 
atic forms. 

5.  The  Abridged  Egyptian  Syllabary. 

Already  in  an  early  period,  the  Egyptians,  who  for  centuries  had 
dealings^  with  Semites  at  home  and  abroad,  selected  some  thirty  out 
of  the  six  hundred  characters  of  their  script  and  employed  them  in  the 
transcription  of  Semitic  words.  This  well-ascertained  datum  is  the 
point  of  departure  and  in  truth  the  key  to  the  whole  situation.  We 
find  nothing  to  match  if  from  the  Babylonian  and  Aramaic  sides. 
Years  ago  it  was  shown  by  Bondi  *  that  Phoenician  and  Hebrew  loan- 
words were  accurately  reproduced  by  this  syllabary  in  hieroglyphic  and 
hieratic  texts.  The  prime  error  of  de  Rouge's  theory  lay  in  the  attempt 
to  derive  the  Phoenician  alphabet  from  the  hieratic  script  pure  and  sim- 
ple. Since,  however,  the  alphabet  under  any  theory  of  its  origin  was  in- 
tended to  serve  the  rough  and  ready  purposes  of  practical  life,  as  in  the 
keeping  of  accounts  and  the  transaction  of  ordinary  business,  both 
Egyptians  and  Phoenicians  would  resort  to  this  transcription  Alphabet. 
That  such  was  actually  the  case  is  known  from  Egyptian  papyri.  Thus 
the  Papyrus  Anastasi  (time  of  Meremptah  II)  reproduces  in  this  way  a 
series  of  Semitic  words.  This  abbreviated  alphabet  employed  by 
Egyptian  scribes  in  the  reproduction  of  Phoenician  words  was  natur- 
ally preferred  on  account  of_  its  brevity  and  simplicity  by  Phoenician 
merchants,  rather  than  the  hieratic  or  the  cuneiform. 

6,  Phoenicians  Drew  from  All  Quarters. 

As  seen  above,  the  Phonicians  having  entered  upon  their  maritime 
expeditions  in  the  Mediterranean  probably  became  acquainted  with  the 
Cretan  script.  Whether  or  not  they  received  hints  from  this  source 
is  unknown,  but  it  is  a  surprising  fact  that  some  potsherds  unearthed 


*  In    "Dem    hehraeisch-phoenizischen    Sprachzweige    angehoerige    Lehnwoerter 
in   hieroglyphischen  und  hieratischen  Text  en." 


148  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

at  Tell-el-Hesy  in  Palestine  and  assigned  to  the  year  1450  B.  C.  have 
characters  bearing  a  striking  resemblance  to  some  half  dozen  of  the 
Aegean  forms.  Add  to  this  the  fact  that  some  eight  of  the  Phoenician 
letters  have  no  intelligible  meaning  in  any  known  language,  and  it 
would  seem  plausible  that  the  Phoenicians  may  have  drawn  also  from 
■;;his  quarter. 

Whether  now  the  Phoenician  alphabet  in  its  essentials  was  devised 
in  Egypt  (Memphis,  or  some  other  Egyptian-Phoenician  quarter),  or 
in  Phoenicia  (Sidon?)  on  the  basis  of  elements  derived  from  many 
sources,  is  unknown.  In  any  case  we  seem  warranted  in  supposing 
that  some  gifted  and  educated  scribe,  versed  in  the  Egyptian  hieratic, 
the  Egyptian  Abbreviated  alphabet  and  the  cuneiform,  and  seeking 
some  short-cut  and  feasible  scheme  of  writing  the  Phoenician,  simply 
adopted  the  well-understood  Egyptian  principle  of  acrophony  and  by 
the  aid  of  the  transcription  alphabet  devised  the  characters  of  the  orig- 
inal Phoenician  alphabet.  But  the  alphabet  in  the  form  exhibited  in 
the  earliest  extant  inscriptions  is  the  result  of  a  long  process  of  de- 
velopment. Time  would  be  required  both  to  determine  the  number 
and  to  test  the  adequacy  of  the  new  letters,  as  well  as  to  effect  their 
introduction.  The  common  Grafian  assumption  (shared  by  men  who 
have  not  looked  closely  into  the  matter)  that  the  Phoenician  alpha- 
bet was  invented  and  forthwith  introduced  only  a  few  centuries  before 
the  Moabite  Stone,  is  without  a  semblance  of  epigraphic  or  comparative 
proof,  and  contravenes  all  the  known  facts  of  the  formation  of  alpha- 
bets and  the  immense  period  required  for  their  spread  and  introduction 
(especially  in  ancient  times,  characterized  by  extreme  conservativism). 
The  experimentation  of  the  Greeks  in  adapting  the  new  script  to  their 
own  language,  and  the  very  nature  of  the  process,  render  it  probable 
that  a  half  dozen  centuries  would  elapse  before  the  alphabet  reached 
the  stage  exhibited  on  the  Moabite  Stone." 

The  Phoenicians  proceeded  from  first  to  last  on  the  eclectic  plan, 
adopting  from  the  Egyptian,  Babylonian  and  other  sources  whatever 
seemed  suitable.  As  seen  above,  the  letter-names  are  in  general  Phoe- 
nician or  at  least  Semitic.  Such  an  eclectic  course  has  in  fact  been 
pursued  in  devising  other  alphabets  ancient  and  modern,  as  the  Armen- 
ian alphabet  of  Mesrop  (fourth  century  A.  D.)  and  the  Gothic  of 
Ulfilas.  These  are  artificial  alphabets  composed  of  letters  from  dis- 
tinct scripts.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Mongolian  alphabet  which  has 
elements  from  three  scripts.  The  Iranian  alphabets  also  furnish  proof 
of  the  composite  character  of  ancient  alphabets.  Some  of  the  alpha- 
bets in  use  in  Persia,  though  containing  ancient  Aramaic  elements, 
are  demonstrably  composite.  A  more  direct  proof  is  furnished  by  the 
Coptic  script  employed  by  Christian  Egyptians.  Instead  of  selecting 
from  the  great  variety  of  Demotic  signs,  they  wrote  the  Eg>^ptian  lan- 
guage in  C^reek  letters,  omitting  or  adding  at  pleasure. 

In  the  light  of  all  this  we  are  quite  prepared  to  understand  that 
the  Phoenicians  naturally  appropriated  whatever  material  lay  in  their 
path. 


^  Nach  dem  Gesagten  wuerde  die  Entstehung  der  Phneiiizischen  Schrift  nicht 
als  das  Werk  eines  findigen  Kopfes,  der  an  der  Stelle  complicirter  Schriftsysteme 
ein  einf aches  setzte  anzunehmen  sein,  sondern  als  das  Ergebniss  eines  langsam 
tind   natuerlich    entwickelnden    Processes"    (Krall,    op.    cit.,    S.    18). 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  SEMITIC    (PHOENICIAN)    ALPHABET.        I49 

7.  Direction  of  Writing. 

Another  decisive  point  in  favor  of  Egyptian  influence  relates  to  the 
direction  of  the  writing.  The  cuneiform,  which  in  early  times  was  ar- 
ranged in  perpendicular  columns,  came  to  be  written  in  horizontal  lines 
from  left  to  right.  If  now  the  inventor  or  inventors  had  followed  Baby- 
Ionian  precedent  they  would  have  written  the  alphabet  in  the  same  way. 
On  the  other  hand  the  hieratic  was  at  the  time  in  question  written  from 
right  to  left."  Prof.  W.  Max  Mueller  says:  "All  cursive  writing  runs 
from  right  to  left  (like  Hebrew  etc.)  ;  hieroglyphics  in  both  direc- 
tions, though  never  boustrophodon"  (En.  Bib.,  1214).  From  the  fact 
that  early  Greek  and  some  North  Semitic  inscriptions  run  boustro- 
pheden,  it  has  been  suggested  that  such  was  also  the  practice  in  the 
original  Phoenician.  But  the  suggestion  is  without  the  shadow  of  proof. 
Even  in  the  boustrophedon  inscriptions,  the  first  line  always  runs  from 
right  to  left.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  the  Semitic  (Phoenician)  alpha- 
bet is  written  from  right  to  left  just  as  the  hieratic  is  a  proof,  not 
easily  set  aside,  of  direct  Egyptian  influence  at  this  point. 

8.  N  on- Ad  option  of  Phoenician  Script  by  Babylonians  and  Assyrians. 

A  fatal  objection  to  the  Babylonian  origin  is  the  fact  that  for  cen- 
turies after  the  invention  of  the  Phoenician  characters,  the  cuneiform 
was  retained  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  It  may  of  course  be  alleged 
that  the  well  known  conservatism  of  the  East  and  the  hesitancy  to 
adopt  new  methods,  even  when  superior  to  the  old,  will  account  for 
this  delay.  But  the  delay  was  of  too  long  duration  to  suit  the  condi- 
tions here.  If  the  new  script  had  arisen  among  the  Babylonians  they 
would  have  been  the  first  to  introduce  it ;  but  there  appears,  so  far  as 
we  know,  to  have  been  no  effort  by  the  Babylonian  scribes  to  introduce  it 
even  alongside  of  the  old  and  complicated  cuneiform.^  To  be  sure  the 
Aramaic  script  was  at  a  later  date  used  in  contract-tablets  side  by  side 
with  the  cuneiform;  but  the  manner  of  its  use  would  imply  that  it  was  a 
foreign  importation.  Not  only  so,  but  among  the  thousands  of  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian  inscriptions  (pertaining  to  all  kinds  of  subjects) 
are  none  in  a  transition  alphabet  from  the  cuneiform  to  the  Phoenician. 
Therefore  we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  old  view  of  a  Phoe- 
nician origin  on  the  basis  of  Egyptian  elements  and  prototypes,  is 
still  in  possession  of  the  field  and,  while  not  accounting  for  all  the  facts, 
meets  a  greater  number  of  the  conditions  of  the  problem  than  any 
other  theory  thus  far  advanced. 


*  "Diese  Schreibrichtung  von  rechts  nach  links  ist  in  der  hieratischen  Schrift 
die  Regel.  Die  Hieroglyphentexte  gehen  von  rechts  nach  links  oder  umgekehrt, 
bald  in  wagrechten,  bald  in  senkrechten  Columnen.  Der  hieratische  Berliner 
Papyrus,  welcher  die  bekannte  Geschichte  des  Ueberlaeufers  Sineha  enthaelt,  ist 
ausnahmsweise  in  senkrechten  Columnen  geschrieben;  sonst  sind  wagrechte  Zei- 
len  beim   Hieratischen  die   Regel"    (Krall,   op.   cit.,    18). 

''  This  objection  would  be  met  if  our  view  (suggested  by  Winckler's  hypothe- 
sis) should  prove  correct,  namely  that  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  originally  and 
for  centuries  a  "vulger"  or  Demotic  script  over  against  the  cuneiform  or  "sacred" 
script.     See,  further,  chap.  XI. 


CHAPTER   X. 

DATE  OF  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PROTO-PHOENICIAN 
AND  THE  PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET. 

I. 

PROTO-PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET  2OOO-I5OO  B.   C. 

Recent  archseological  discoveries  indicate  that  the  proto- 
Phoenician  alphabet  sprang  up  between  2000  and  1500  B.  C. 
The  system  of  writing  in  the  Mediterranean  coast-lands  from 
2000  and  1600  prepared  the  way  for  the  origin  and  spread 
of  the  Phoenician  letters.  A  recent  authority  says:  ''Crete 
was  the  chief  seat  of  the  Mycenaean  system  of  writing,  which 
was  in  vogue  from  3000  to  1500.  The  Mycenaean  characters 
serve  the  purpose  of  what  we  call  syllables  and  letters.  These 
conditions  probably  led  to  the  transformation  of  the  oldest 
Mycenaean  script  into  syllabic  Cypriote  alphabet,"  (see  Kluge, 
Die  Schrift  d.  Mykenier).     See  above,  chap.  VI. 

So,  too,  Prof.  Flinders  Petrie:  "A  great  signary  was  in 
use  all  over  the  Mediterranean  5,000  B.  C.  It  is  actually  found 
in  Egypt  at  that  period,  and  was  split  in  two,  Western  and 
Eastern,  by  the  cross  flux  of  hieroglyphic  systems  in  Egypt 
and  among  the  Hittites.  This  linear  signary  was  developed 
variously,  but  retained  much  in  common  in  different  countries. 
It  was  first  systematized  by  the  numerical  values  assigned  to  it 
by  the  Phoenician  traders,  who  carried  it  into  Greece,  whereby 
the  Greek  signary  was  delimited  into  an  alphabet"  (Jo.  An- 
throp.  Inst.,  1899).  This  signary  was  not,  according  to  Petrie, 
a  real  alphabet ;  ''the  change  of  attributing  a  single  letter  value 
to  each  sign,  and  only  using  signs  for  sounds  to  be  built  into 
words,  is  apparently  a  relatively  late  outcome  of  the  systematiz- 
ing due  to  Phoenician  commerce". 

Hommel  and  Weber  also  hold  that  the  proto-Phoenician 
alphabet  arose  about  2000  B.  C.  (see  above,  p.,  142)  and  that 
some  connection  exists  between  the  cuneiform  and  the  West- 
Semitic  scripts.  "An  original,  non-Semitic  alphabet,  but  one 
adopted  by  all  the  Semites,  appears  to  have  existed,  which  was 

150 


PROTO-PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET  2OOO-I5OO  B.   C.  I5I 

in  use  in  Babylonia  as  a  scriptura  profana,  but  used  perhaps 
on  papyrus  alongside  of  the  picture-writing".^  Nevertheless, 
riddles  surround  this  view;  ''Above  all,  is  the  difficulty  of 
explaining  why  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  did  not  employ, 
so  far  as  we  know,  this  simple  alphabetic  script  (even  in  private 
letters)  if  it  existed".  "However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that 
the  alphabet  goes  back  to  the  third  millennium  B.  C.  The 
nations  which  at  that  date  came  forth  from  the  Arabian  womb 
of  races  were  unquestionably  in  possession  of  this  script.  So 
far  as  they  came  within  the  direct  influence  of  Babylonian  cul- 
ture they  betook  themselves  to  the  use  of  the  cuneiform,  rather 
than  the  alphabetic  script,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  determine. 
The  other  peoples,  the  Canaanites  and  Minaeans,  widely  separ- 
ated geographically  and  developing  under  different  conditions, 
brought  the  same  original  script  to  the  stage  of  independent 
development  shown  in  the  monuments  of  looo  B.  C,  which 
exhibit  a  script  then  already  a  long  time  complete  (etwas 
laengst  fertiges  und  ahgcschlossenes)"  (Weber,  op.  cit.,  p.,  15). 
It  was  pointed  out  above  (chap.  VII)  that  the  South 
Semitic  letters  are  probably  a  development  of  some  unknown 
proto-types  (rather  than  a  development  of  the  North-Semitic). 
Weber  supports  this  contention,  adducing  some  strong  points. 
He  holds  that  the  Minsean  Kingdom  antedates  the  Sabsean. 
"In  the  beginning  of  the  second  millennium  B.  C.  a  new  stream 
of  nations  began  to  pour  out  of  Arabia.  While  the  Canaanites, 
Phoenicians,  Hebrews  and  Chaldeans  moved  Northward  and 
North-Westward,  the  Minaeans  must  have  migrated  to  South- 
ern Arabia.  When  South  Arabian  history  begins  for  us,  there 
exists  a  highly  developed  state, — undoubtedly  the  concomitant 
of  a  high  civilization.  The  script  of  the  earliest  monuments 
exhibits  a  perfection  which  must  have  been  the  outgrowth  of 
centuries  of  development.  In  North- Western  Arabia,  in  the 
Biblical  Midian  there  had  arisen  a  Minsean  colony, — Muzraim, 
which  anciently  stood  in  close  connection  with  the  Minsean 
commerce  of  the  Mediterranean.  Of  the  existence  of  this 
Minasan  colony  of  Musraim  the  South  Arabic  monuments  have 
yielded  for  the  first  time  definite  information.  They  furnished 
the  key  to  the  right  understanding  of  numerous  passages  in 
other  literature,  especially  in  the  Bible.  All  this  cast  a  new 
light  on  Northern  Arabia  and  proved  that  North  Arabian  races 
with  or  without  political  organization  stood  in  close  relation  to 

^  Otto  Weber,  Arahien  vor  dem  Islam,  p.,  14,  seq. 


152  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Canaanites  and  especially  Hebrews  from  early  times"  (op.  cit., 
24). 

I.  The  Sinai  Scribings  isoo  B.  C. 

That  such  a  script  was  actually  employed  by  Minseans, 
Egyptians  and  Syrians  as  early  as  1500  B.  C,  has  been  definite- 
ly established  by  the  Egyptologist,  Flinders  Petrie.  In  his 
exploration  on  Sinai  he  discovered  speciments  of  a  new  kind 
of  writing  several  centuries  older  than  the  Exodus.-^  As  his 
discoveries  signally  confirm  the  position  here  taken,  we  repro- 
duce his  description  at  sortie  length.  In  excavating  at  Serabit 
near  Sinai,  "a  remarkable  group  of  figures  was  found  in  the 
temple,  of  a  ruder  style  than  the  regular  Egyptian  figures  and 
some  bearing  inscriptions  in  unknown  characters.  ...  At 
last  it  was  clear  that  we  had  remains  of  about  eight  tablets, 
roughly  cut,  with  broad  grooves  round  them  to  isolate  them. 
....  But  none  of  the  inscriptions  were  intelligible  as  Egyp- 
tian, of  any  hieratic  or  debased  type.  A  figure  of  the  god  Ptah 
was  evident,  very  roughly  outlined ;  but  not  a  word  of  regular 
Egyptian  could  be  read.  There  was  a  mixture  of  Egyptian 
hieroglyphics,  but  most  of  the  signs  are  quite  apart  from  such. 
How  much  can  be  concluded  about  this  writing?  i.  It  is  a 
definite  system  and  not  merely  a  scribbling  made  in  ignorant 
imitations  of  Egyptian  writing  by  men  who  knew  no  better.  The 
repetition  of  the  same  five  signs  in  the  same  order  on  the  figure 
and  on  the  sphinx  from  the  temple,  as  well  as  on  three  of  the 
tablets  over  the  mines  a  mile  and  a  half  distant,  shows  that 
mere  fancy  is  not  the  source  of  the  writing.  2.  It  is  always 
connected  with  work  of  a  style  different  from  all  the  usual 
Egyptian  work  here,  a  peculiar  local  style  which  was  not  fol- 
lowed by  any  one  trained  in  Egyptian  methods.  Each  of  these 
facts  is  not  conclusive,  but  they  all  agree,  and  we  are  bound  to 
accept  this  writing  as  being  about  1500  B.  C."  (op.  cit.,  p.,  131  ).'^ 

Finally,  "the  ulterior  conclusion  is  very  important  —  name- 
ly that  common  Syrian  workmen,  who  could  not  command  the 
skill  of  an  Egyptian  sculptor,  were  familiar  with  writing  in 


'  Researches  in  Sinai.     By  W.   M.    Flinders   Petrie.      1909. 

»  Petrie  continues:  "I  am  disposed  to  see  in  this,  one  of  the  many  alphabets 
which  were  in  use  in  the  Mediterranean  lands  long  before  the  fixed  alphabet 
selected  by  the  Phoenicians.  A  mass  of  signs  was  used  continuously  from  6,000, 
or  7,000  B.  C.  until  out  of  it  was  crystallized  the  alphabet  of  the  Mediterranean. 
Some  of  the  workmen  employed  by  the  Egyptians,  probably  Syrians  who  are  often 
named,  had  this  system  of  linear  signs,  with  which  they  naturally  mixed  hierogly- 
phics borrowed  from  their  masters.  And  here  we  have  the  result,  at  a  date  some 
five  centuries  before  the  oldest  Phoenician  writing  that  is  known'     (p.,  132). 


PROTO-PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET  2OOO-I5OO  B.   C.  1 53 

1500  B.  C. ;  and  this  writing  independent  of  hieroglyphics  and 
cuneiform.  It  finally  disproves  the  hypothesis  that  the  Israel- 
ites, who  came  through  this  region  into  Egypt  and  passed  back 
again,  could  not  have  used  writing.  Here  we  have  common 
Syrian  laborers  possessing  a  script  which  other  Semitic  people 
of  this  region  must  be  credited  with  knowing". 

C.  J.  Ball  holds  that  these  Sinai  scribblings  read  from  right 
to  left  (like  Hebrew)  and  that  one  of  them  contains  the  word 
Ishtar.  "The  chief  interest  of  the  thing  lies  in  the  fact  that 
the  identity  of  Hathor  with  Ishhara-Ishtar  is  proved  by  the  in- 
scription and  that  we  have  here  Phoenician  writing  of  a  date 
apparently  as  early  as  1500  B.  C."^  Sayce  agrees  with  Petrie 
and  Ball.^ 

2.   SUMMARY. 

( I ) .  As  early  as  2000  B.  C.  the  nucleus  of  a  script  essen- 
tially alphabetic,  designated  here  as  proto-Phoenician,  originat- 
ed in  Babylonia  and  gradually  reached  the  West-land,  where 
enterprising  Canaanites  (Phoenicians),  adopting  the  Egyptian 
principle  of  acrophony  and  drawing  from  other  sources  (possi- 
bly Cretan)  elaborated  the  so-called  Phoenician  (but  more  prop- 
erly Semitic)  alphabet.  The  South- Arabic  type  split  off  either 
from  the  original  proto-Semitic  or  the  early  Phoenician  (in  the 
broad  sense). 

(2).  The  simple  primitive  script  was  for  centuries  em- 
ployed as  a  scriptura  privata  alongside  of  the  cuneiform  (the 
scriptura  puhlica  et  diplomatica)  and  only  slowly  gained  the 
favor  of  the  learned  classes.  The  fact  that  there  existed  both  a 
sacred  and  a  vulgar  script  in  Egypt,  and  the  hypothesis  of 
Winckler  (see  below,  ch.  XI)  that  the  distinction  between  a 
"sacred"  (cuneiform)  and  a  "vulgar"  (Phoenician)  script  was 
observed  in  Israel,  would  account  for  the  non-employment  of 
the  Phoenician  in  the  Amama  Letters. 


*  See  Proced.  Soc.  Bib.  Archaeol.  XXX,  243 — 4.  "I  saw  at  once  that  the  first 
four  letters,    read    from   right  to   left,    gave   the  name   of  Athtar,   the    S.   Arabian 

equivalent    of   Ishtar There    are    nine   characters,   all   clear  except    6   and 

7,   where  there   are   flaws   in   the  stone.     We   may   read  either  'Athtar-Antarta,   or 
Athtar-Antsabhoth,  i.  e.,  perhaps,  Ishtar  of  the  Earrings"   (p.,  243). 

»  E.  J.  Pilcher  supposes  that  "illiterate  natives  attempted  to  copy  an  Egyp- 
tian stele.  One  or  two  signs  would  be  reproduced  more  or  less  correctly;  but  the 
rest  would  be  mere  arbitrary  scratches"  (Proceed.  Soc.  B.  Ar.  XXXI,  38).  On 
this  Sayce  comments  thus:  "Mr.  Pilcher's  ingenious  explanation  is,  I  am  afraid, 
impossible"    (Ibid.,  p.,   132). 


154  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

II. 
PHOENICIAN   ALPHABET    I5OO  B.    C. 

The  names,  the  number,  the  order  and  the  forms  of  the 
letters  prove  that  the  alphabet  originated  with  a  Semite.  But 
his  name  and  nationality  are  unknown.  At  best,  therefore, 
we  can  merely  reason  back  from  the  known  to  the  unknown. 
Fortunately,  however,  the  laws  of  language  and  of  graphic 
development  aid  us  in  the  search. 

A.    PRINCIPLES    OF    ALPHABETOLOGY. 

I.  Alphabets  Grow. 

As  seen  above  (ch.  VII)  the  discovery  of  a  great  number 
of  ancient  inscriptions  has  led  to  the  application  of  modern 
methods  ^f  examination  and  investigation.  Palaeography  and 
epigraphy  now  rank  among  the  exact  sciences.  By  the  laws  of 
growth  and  development,  so  highly  prized  in  other  sciences,  we 
are  enabled  to  discover  general  principles  which  serve  as  a 
guide  in  the  construction  of  a  theory  of  the  origin  and  growth 
of  the  ancient  systems  of  writing.  The  older  alphabetologists 
either  ignored,  or  failed  to  apply  consistently,  the  law  of  devel- 
opment; and  so  failed  to  reach  a  solution  of  the  origin  of  the 
Phoenician  alphabet.  It  was  universally  assumed  that  some 
transcendent  genius  at  one  stroke  conceived,  devised  and  put 
into  practical  use  the  Semitic  alphabet  of  22  letters,  and  that  all 
his  countrymen  and  the  Semitic  tribes  and  nations  forthwith 
adopted  the  same.  Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  real 
facts.  Written,  like  spoken  language,  is  the  result  of  centuries 
of  growth  and  development,  experimentation  and  modification, 
selection  and  rejection.  No  known  alphabet,  ancient  or  mod^ 
em,  sprang  into  being  at  one  bound ;  and  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  Semitic  was  an  exception  to  the  rule. 

Slow  differentiation  by  minute  variation,  as  so  often  point- 
ed out  in  the  case  of  plants  and  animals,  is  found  to  be  the  law 
that  obtains  in  the  life  and  growth  of  alphabets.  It  is  a  prin- 
ciple now  universally  accepted  by  Semitic  palaeographers  and 
epigraphists,  that  graphic  and  alphabetic  changes  seldom  take 
place  arbitrarily  or  accidentally,  but  are  the  result  of  growth  and 
development  in  accordance  with  law. 

2.  Law  of  Correlative  Variation. 

One  change  tends  to  produce  another.  Thus  a  change  in 
one  letter,  especially  if  it  approach  the  form  of  the  first,  neces- 


PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET    I5OO  B.    C.  1 55 

sitates  a  change  in  the  second  in  order  that  the  dissemblance 
may  be  maintained.  This  is  illustrated  by  such  letters  as  m 
and  n,  p  and  q,  v  and  zu  in  English.  The  character  of  the  writ- 
ing material  often  affects  the  shape  of  letters,  even  in  the  same 
alphabet.  The  script  on  bark,  palm-leaves,  papyrus  or  parch- 
ment differs  from  writing  on  wax,  clay,  stone,  or  metal,  even 
though  the  characters  in  general  are  the  same. 

3.  Adoption  of  Foreign  Script. 

Since  each  language  has  its  own  peculiar  words  and  sounds, 
any  script  adopted,  whether  native  or  foreign,  must  conform 
to  the  spirit  and  phonetic  laws  of  the  language.  No  two  lan- 
guages have  exactly  the  same  script  or  alphabet.  Hence  in  the 
adoption  of  a  foreign  script  some  of  the  old  symbols  will  be 
modified  or  put  to  a  new  use,  or  even  omitted.  If  new  char- 
acters are  required,  they  are  usually  adopted  from  scripts  which 
have  forms  lending  themselves  to  such  use.  Thus  when  the 
Phoenician  alphabet  was  adopted  by  the  Greeks,  certain  con- 
sonants, as  aleph,  he,  waw,  jod,  (used  sometimes  as  vowel-let- 
ters) gradually  came  to  be  used  altogether  as  vowels.  The 
alphabetologist  who  applies  the  principles  and  methods  of  his 
science  understands  that  the  evolution  of  the  Semitic  script 
from  the  earliest  forms  to  the  characters  exhibited  on  the  Moa- 
bite  Stone,  or  the  Gezer  and  Zakar  inscriptions,  must  have  ex- 
tended over  a  much  longer  period  than  was  though  possible  in 
the  pre-scientific  stage  of  the  study  of  inscriptions.  It  is  gen- 
erally held  that  the  original  Phcenician  alphabet  had  only  about 
18  letters.^ 

4.  No  Absolute  Sameness  of  Development. 
It  is  further  true  that  the  rate  of  alphabetic  change  is  not  uniform 
and  absolute,  but  conditioned  by  internal  and  external  circumstances. 
War,  conquest,  colonization,  trade-routes,  religion  and  national  spirit 
have  often  greatly  affected,  and  sometimes  radically  changed  the  trans- 
mission of  alphabets.  The  supremacy  of  the  Babylonian  power  in  the 
fifteenth  century  B.  C.  carried  the  cuneiform  script  to  the  far  west,  so 
that  even  the  Egyptian  court  was  constrained  to  employ  that  cumbrous 
syllabary  in  its  foreign  correspondence.  So,  too,  the  Greek  tribes, 
(though  having  a  script  of  their  own),  coming  into  contact  with  the 
Phoenicians,  the  chief  carriers  in  the  Mediterranean  in  1200  B.  C, 
adopted  the  Ph<]enician  script  on  account  of  its  superiority  and_  com- 
mercial relations.  The  same  law  is  illustrated  by  the  introduction  of 
the  Greek  alphabet  and  civilization  into  Italy,  and  of  the  Carthaginian 
language  into  Spain. 


•  Lidzbarski:  "Auch  ich  bin  der  Ansicht,  dass  Heth  nur  cine  Erweiterung 
von  He,  Samekh  ein  erweitertes  Zayin,  Teth  ein  Taw  mit  cinem  Kreis  darum,  und 
dass  vielleicht  auch  Tsadhe  aus  Shin  oder  Zayin  entstanden  ist'    (Ephetn.  I,   112). 


156  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

B.  THE  THREE   TYPES    OF   THE    NORTH    SEMITIC    ALPHABET. 

The  inscriptions  reviewed  above  reveal  three  types  of  the 
North  Semitic  alphabet,  the  Phoenician,  the  Aramaic  and  the 
Hebrew,  each  with  marked  characteristics.  The  conclusion 
reached  from  a  comparison  of  the  letters  was  that  the  old 
Semitic  characters  were  devised  not  later  than  about  1500  B.  C. 
The  laws  of  graphic  development  prove  this.  A  comparison 
of  the  letters  in  our  Chart,  cols.  XI,  XVIII,  XXIII,  compels 
us  to  hold  that  centuries  were  required  for  the  rise,  develop- 
ment, differentiation,  segregation,  spread,  and  well-nigh  uni- 
versal introduction  by  1000  B.  C.  Both  epigraphically  and 
historically,  the  date  of  origin,  must  fall  not  far  from  1500.  A 
principle  enunciated  by  Lidzbarski  is  to  the  point  here:  "A 
script  changes  little  if  confined  to  narrow  circles.  But  if  it 
gain  currency,  and  especially  if  used  much  in  practical  life,  it 
soon  approaches  a  form  admitting  of  rapid  writing.  And  so 
we  find  that  the  North  Semitic  script  changes  very  little  during 
the  first  five  hundred  years  in  which  we  can  trace  its  history. 
If  now  the  alphabet  had  existed,  say  in  1500,  not  as  many 
changes  would  have  taken  place  to  1000  B.  C,  as  in  the  next 
five  hundred  years.  But  if  such  changes  occurred,  they  would 
have  been  similar  to  the  later  development.  At  least  I  could 
assign  no  reason  why  another  law  should  be  operative". 
(Ephem.  I,  1 11 ) .  Before  the  final  summary  we  discuss  briefly 
the  relation  between  the  North  and  South  Semitic  scripts. 

C.  RELATION  OF   NORTH    AND  SOUTH    SEMITIC   ALPHABETS. 

On  the  basis  of  the  data  given  above  (chap.  VII),  it  is 
clear  that  the  South  Semitic  inscriptions  go  back  to  an  early 
date.  If  now  they  should  be  found  to  antedate  the  North 
Semitic  script,  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  Semitic  script  would 
be  still  earlier,  for  obviously  one  influenced  the  other,  as  proved 
by  the  sameness  of  the  letter-names. 

Not  Earlier  than  the  North  Semitic.  The  Sabsean-Minae- 
an  script,  as  seen  from  the  chart,  col.  XXIX,  is  distinguished 
from  the  North  Semitic  by  elegance  of  form.  The  writing  of 
the  principal  monuments  may  be  classed  with  the  best  that  the 
calligraphic  art  furnishes.  In  all  probabiHty,  the  script,  as 
found  on  the  monuments  was  a  modification  of  that  in  common 
use.  In  practical  life  a  simpler  and  more  cursive  style  was 
doubtless  employed.  But  each  probably  influenced  the  other. 
The  greater  influence  of  the  lapidary  script  is  traceable  to  the 


PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET   I5OO  B.   C.  1 57 

s>Tnmetry  prevailing  in  the  majority  of  the  letters.  Lidzbarski 
made  the  surprising  discovery  that  of  the  29  letters  22  are  so 
shaped  that  they  fall  into  two  corresponding  halves.  This  is 
indicated  in  six  of  them  by  a  vertical  line,  in  four  by  a  horizon- 
tal line  and  in  twelve  by  both  lines.  That  this  is  not  acciden- 
tal is  shown  by  the  ratio  of  the  symmetrical  to  the  other  char- 
acters, viz.  22  to  7.  This  becomes  more  apparant  if  we  com- 
pare the  N.  Semitic  script.  Here  the  greatest  irregularity  ex- 
ists, and  even  the  signs  which  lend  themselves  to  a  regular  for- 
mation, as  aleph,  daleth,  and  he,  lack  a  symmetrical  develop- 
ment. 

Hence  it  follows  that  the  earliest  script  was  not  the  sym- 
metrically developed  Sabsean-Minaean,  but  rather  the  proto-type 
of  the  irregular  N.  Semitic,  for  obviously  the  Northern  Semites, 
in  their  adoption  of  a  script,  assuming  that  the  South  Semitic 
were  then  extant,  would  not  have  changed  the  ornate  and  reg- 
ular forms  into  the  crude  and  irregular  Phoenician  characters. 
It  is  more  probable  that  the  S.  Semitic  forms  are  a  development 
of  some  unknown  proto-type.  Lidzbarski  institutes  an  elaborate 
comparison  of  the  N.  and  S.  forms  and  reaches  the  conclusion 
that  if  any  dependence  exists,  it  is  that  of  the  South-Arabic 
on  the  N.  Semitic.  ''The  Sabaean  script  must  have  origin- 
ated before  the  alphabet  broke  up  into  the  three  extant  branch- 
es; that  is  about  the  time  that  the  Greek  branched  off,  circa 
1200-1000.  In  all  probability  the  S.  Arabian  merchants  learned 
it  in  Gaza  or  some  other  Phoenician  center"  (Lidz.,  Ephem.,  I, 
128). 

Contrary  to  Lidzbarski  and  Halevy,  the  view  is  steadily 
gaining  ground  that  the  South-Semitic  alphabet  is  an  offshoot, 
not  of  the  Phoenician,  but  of  an  earlier  type.  Weber  and  Prae- 
torius  hold  that  the  difference  between  the  Sab^ean-Minsean  and 
the  Phoenician  is  so  great  that  neither  could  have  been  derived 
from  the  other,  both  being  traceable  to  a  common  ancestor. 
The  Moabite  characters  are  the  result  of  a  long  development 
and  "some  facts  are  now  at  hand  which  indicate  an  experimen- 
tal stage  in  times  long  prior  to  Mesha"  (Praetorius).  The 
South-Semitic  sprang  from  an  early  (unknown,  but  essentially) 
alphabetic  script.  The  symmetry  of  the  S.-Semitic  characters 
is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  Moabite  and  Minaean  are 
ancient  modifications  of  a  script  not  yet  definitely  fixed. '^     Cer- 


^  "Der  unter  sich  im  ganzen  einheitliche,  dem  Mesa-alphabet  gegenueber 
aber  vielfach  fremdartige  Character,  den  die  Buchstaben  der  Sued-Semitischen 
Alphabete    aufweisen,    erklaert    sich    dann   daraus,    dass    Sued-Semitisch   und    Mesa 


158  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

tain  Sabsean  leters,  as  aleph,  beth,  he,,  kaph,  mem,  samekh  can- 
not be  conceived  as  evolutions  of  Phoenician  forms.  Praetorius 
would  trace  a  few  letters,  as  he,  heth,  kaph,  to  Cypriote  proto- 
types.^ 

Other  Semitic  philologists  entertain  the  view  that  the  S. 
Semitic  alphabet  cannot  be  a  development  of  the  Phoenician. 
The  latest  edition  (the  eleventh)  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britanni- 
ca,  presumably  the  highest  authority  in  England,  says :"  "It 
would  be  premature  to  say  that  the  Sabsean  alphabet  is  derived 
from  the  Phoenician.  It  is  likely,  considering  the  date  of  both, 
that  they  are  equally  descendants  from  an  older  source.  .  . 
It  is  the  tendency  of  the  Northern  Semitic  to  open  the  heads  of 
letters  and  therefore  it  is  possible  that  the  Sabsean  form  for 
jod  may  be  older  than  the  Phoenician.  Similarly,  if  pe  mean 
mouth,  Hommel  is  right  in  contending  that  the  Sabsean  (see 
Chart)  is  more  like  the  object  than  the  Phoenician.  So  also  if 
kaph  corresponds  to  the  Bab.  Kappu,  the  hollow  hand,  the 
Sabasan  form  (see  chart),  which  Hommel  interprets  as  the 
outline  of  the  hand  with  the  fingers  turned  in  and  the  thumb 
raised,  is  a  better  pictograph  than  the  various  meaningless 
forms  of  k".  Finally,  "if  it  be  possible  to  assign  to  some  of 
the  monuments  discovered  in  Arabia  by  Glaser  a  date  not  later 
than  1500  B.  C,  the  origin  of  the  alphabet  and  its  dissemina- 
tion are  carried  back  to  a  much  earlier  period  than  had  hitherto 
been  supposed"  (Vol.  I,  p.,  729). 

Since  even  Lidzbarski  admits  that  the  Sabsean  script  arose 
before  the  breaking  up  of  the  Semitic  alphabet  into  the  three 
North  Semitic  branches,  we  seem  to  be  forced  to  predicate  an 
earlier,  that  is  Proto-Phoenician  alphabet.^ 

D.   ORIGIN    OF    SEMITIC    ALPHABET    CIRCA    1 500    B.    C. 

The  lines  of  evidence  from  three  independent  fields,  name- 
ly, the  North  and  South  Semitic  and  the  Greek  inscriptions, 


uralte  Gabelungen  von  einer  noch  nicht  ganz  festen,  einheitlichen  Schrift  sind. 
Und  aus  diesem  Verhaeltniss  ergibt  sich  waiter  sofort,  dass  die  vermissten  Mit- 
telglieder  zwischen  Mesa  und  Sued.-Semitisch  ueberhaupt  nicht  vorhanden  sein 
koennen"  (F.  Praetorius,  Das  Kan.  u.  S.  Sent.  Al.  in  Zeits.  d.  D.  M.  G.  LXIII, 
p.,   189,   f). 

8  Lidzb.  holds  that  the  Phoen.  aleph  was  turned  half  way  round  as  in  the 
Greek  A  and  so  developed  into  the  Sabasan  form.  See  chart.  He  would  derive 
even  the  Sabaean  teth  and  pe  from  the  Phoenician.  Grimme  admits  that  the  long 
time  required  for  the  transformation  of  the  Phoen.  teth  into  the  S.-Sem.,  implies 
a  great  antiquity  for  the  S.-Sem.  script;  and  in  fact  "it  is  allowed  that  the  orig- 
inal Semitic  alphabet  reaches  very  nearly  to  the  Amarna  period"  (Zeiis.  f. 
Assy.    1907). 

8  "The  theory  is  gradually  gaining  ground  that  the  Phoenicians  borrowed  the 
alphabet  from  South  Arabia"   (New  Intern.  Ency.).     So  too  the  Jewish  Ency. 


PHOENICIAN  ALPHABET   I5OO  B.    C.  1 59 

have  established  beyond  a  peradventure  the  fact  that  the  Sem- 
itic script  and  its  various  offshoots  originated  in  an  epoch  far 
more  remote  than  has  usually  been  supposed,  especially  by  the 
school  predisposed  to  question  the  credibility  of  ancient  his- 
tory. According  to  the  law  of  development  of  scripts  we  are 
compelled  to  predicate  centuries  for  the  evolution  of  letters 
which  were  formerly  supposed  to  have  sprung  up  over  night. 
There  is  no  such  discipline  as  the  science  of  epigraphy,  or  even 
of  history  and  language,  unless  we  follow  the  laws  of  develop- 
ment whithersoever  they  lead.  Scientists  and  historians  have 
during  recent  decades  professed  to  apply  rigidly  what  is  called 
the  law  of  evolution  (whatever  that  may  be),  but  in  the  field 
of  Semitic  epigraphy  the  most  pretentiously  scientific  and  pro- 
gressive Old  Testament  scholars  (Wellhausen,  Stade,  et  id 
omne  genus)  have  with  a  few  notable  exceptions  (Glaser,  Hom- 
mel)  seen  nothing  but  a  dead  level  of  uniformity  or  a  magic 
change  of  scripts  and  alphabets. ^^ 

But  the  spade  has  at  last  turned  up  from  beneath  the 
ruins  of  ancient  cities  and  temples  the  mute  (but  incontrover- 
tible) witnesses  of  far-off  and  forgotten  civilizations  with  all 
their  wealth  of  art  and  engraving.  There  can  be  no  shadow 
of  doubt  that  writing  and  literature  in  the  Semitic  (Phoenician) 
script  were  cultivated  centuries  before  the  period  to  which  the 
oldest  extant  inscriptions  can  be  traced.  From  the  firm  foot- 
hold of  the  known  date  of  inscriptions  we  can  with  the  greatest 
assurance  reason  back  to  the  probable  date  of  other  inscriptions, 
and  thus  establish  approximately  the  date  of  origin  of  the  al- 
phabet. All  the  available  evidence,  linguistic,  historic  and  ar- 
chaeological, tends  with  cumulative  force  and  cognency  to  es- 
tablish our  thesis  that  the  Semitic  script  arose  about  1500  B.  C. 


J"  It  may  be  observed,  en  passant,  that  the  very  school,  the  Grafian,  which  has 
all  along  maintained  that  O.  T.  language,  history,  and  religion  are  but  an  ex- 
pression of  the  law  of  evolution,  is  guilty  here  of  the  most  palpable  inconsistency 
in  pushing  the  employment  of  writing  and  literature  in  Israel  down  to  about  900 
B.  C.  So  far  as  we  have  been  enabled  to  discover  in  all  the  immense  literature 
of  the  "Higher  Criticism",  there  is  nowhere  even  an  attempt  to  rnaintain  by 
epigraphic  proof  the  extreme  position  of  the  Grafians  and  Panbabylonists  on  this 
point.  There  is  to  be  sure  no  end  of  assertion  and  of  claiming  everything  m 
sight.     But  of  proof  there  is   very   little. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  SCRIPT  AND  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  EARLY 
OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS. 

I.   THE    GROUND    COVERED    THUS    FAR. 

What  now  are  the  points  established  thus  far?  It  was 
shown  that  the  Semites,  especially  the  Babylonians,  early  adopt- 
ed a  syllabic  system  of  writing  and  cultivated  literature  on  an 
extensive  scale.  A  natural  inference  is  that  the  ancestors  of 
Israel,  the  Terahites  and  Abrahamites,  had  some  knowledge  of 
writing  and  possibly  carried  with  them  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees 
tablets  containing  accounts  of  the  creation.  Paradise,  the  fall 
and  other  early  narratives  of  Genesis.  Again,  Egypt  was  the 
home  of  scribes,  and  of  writing  and  literature  in  a  preeminent 
degree,  the  youth  generally  being  taught  to  write,  even  the 
poorest  child  and  the  slave  at  his  task.  It  would  have  been  an 
unparalled  exception  had  not  at  least  the  more  brilliant  and  in- 
telligent of  the  Israelites,  surrounded  by  writing  on  all  sides, 
acquired  the  art  sufficiently  to  read  papyrus  rolls  or  simple  tab- 
lets. Canaan  itself  prior  to  the  conquest  by  the  Israelites  had 
been  under  the  influence  of  Babylonian  law  and  civilization  for 
a  thousand  years  and  was  far  advanced  in  the  arts;  some  at 
least  of  the  common  people  could  read  and  write.  The  pas- 
sages cited  from  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua  and  Judges  clearly 
prove,  as  admitted  by  negative  critics,  that  writing  existed 
among  the  Hebrews  as  early  as  the  date  of  Gideon,  the  Song 
of  Deborah  and  perhaps  the  Exodus.  The  general  spread  of 
writing  during  the  first  half  of  the  period  of  the  Judges  and 
the  cultivation  of  literature  not  later  than  the  second  half  Avere 
pointed  out  as  conceded  by  nearly  all  authorities  in  this  field. 

2.    THE   GROUND    STILL    TO    BE  COVERED. 

But  it  is  not  sufficient  to  show  that  writing  of  some  kind 
flourished  among  the  Hebrews  at  an  early  date:  we  wish  to 
know  whether  they  employed  the  Phcenician  alphabet  of  22 
letters,  or  whether  they  employed  the  difficult  cuneiform,  or 
the  complicated  Egyptian  hieratic,  or  some  other  ancient  script. 

160 


EARLY   OLD    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  l6l 

This  necessitated  an  inquiry  into  the  time  and  place  of  origin 
of  the  Phoenician  alphabet  —  the  alphabet  which  the  Hebrews 
adopted  at  some  disputed  date  and  in  which  their  literature  of 
the  middle  period  was  composed.  An  examination  of  the 
Phoenician,  Aramaic,  Hebrew  and  South  Semitic  inscriptions 
by  the  comparative  method  and  according  to  the  laws  of 
graphic  development,  pointed  to  circa  1500  B.  C.  as  the  latest 
possible  date  for  the  invention  of  the  Phoenician  letters.  The 
period  of  the  adoption  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet  by  the  Greeks, 
about  1200-1100  pointed,  it  was  seen,  in  the  same  direction, 
namely  a  date  sufficiently  early  to  allow  for  the  fixedness, 
spread  and  introduction  of  the  Phoenician  alphabet. 

The  next  question  to  engage  our  attention  is  the  date 
when  the  Hebrews  adopted  the  Phoenician  alphabet  and  began 
to  use  it  in  writing  their  books,  sacred  and  profane.  If  it  could 
be  shown  that  the  Hebrews  at  an  early  date  came  into  contact 
with  Phoenicians,  Canaanites,  Minseans  or  some  people  using 
the  Phoenician  script  and  adopted  it  from  that  quarter,  the  way 
would  be  prepared  for  an  argument  in  support  of  the  claim  that 
the  Hebrews  after  the  Exodus  employed  the  Hebrew  language 
and  the  Phoenician  script  rather  than  the  Assyrian  language 
and  the  cuneiform  script. 

3.    NATURE    OF    THE    PROBLEM. 

The  view  that  the  early  Old  Testament  books  were  writ- 
ten in  the  Hebrew  language  and  the  archaic  Hebrew  script 
remained  unshaken  until  within  recent  years.  But  since  the 
discovery  of  the  Armarna  Letters,  the  Tell  Taannek  (1350  B. 
C.)  and  the  Assyrian  Gezer  inscriptions  (seventh  cent.  B.  C.)^ 
the  hypothesis  has  been  advanced  that  a  considerable  part  of  the 
early  Old  Testament  literature  was  composed  in  the  Babylon- 
ian-Assyrian language  and  the  cuneiform  script,  and  afterward 
translated  into  the  Hebrew  language  and  script.  If  this  hy- 
pothesis should  prove  correct,  it  would  necessitate  an  entire 
reconstruction  of  traditional  views  regarding  the  source  and 
character  of  the  early  Old  Testament  books. ^ 

The   question   cannot  be   settled   off-hand.     The   original 


1  The  reader  will  note  that  the  Gezer  Calendar  Tablet  described  above  (chap. 
VII)  is  in  the  Heb.  lang.  and  script,  but  the  Gezer  Assyrian  inscriptions  in  the 
cuneiform   script   (see   Sec.    D.    2,   below). 

2  Winckler,  Benzinger  and  Jeremias  see  in  the  hypothesis  (which  for  them 
is  a  fixed  datum)  strong  support  for  the  Panbabylonism  which  traces  nearly  every- 
thing valuable  in  the  Old  Testament  to  Babylonian  culture  and  religion;  Conder 
and  Sayce  see  in  it  a  basis  for  undermining  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory  of  the 
Codes. 

II 


l62  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

copies,  and  early  transcripts  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  com- 
ponent parts,  perished  before  the  time  of  Christ.  By  the  aid 
of  the  present  Hebrew  Scriptures  and  of  the  ancient  versions 
we  can  establish  the  integrity  of  the  text  from  458  B.  C.  (Ezra) 
or  certainly  300  B.  C.  onward;  and  by  means  of  cross-refer- 
ences and  quotations  in  the  Old  Testament  we  can  prove  that 
the  substance  of  the  Pentateuch  was  extant  in  900  B.  C.  The 
doubts  of  the  Higher  Criticism  would  be  dispelled,  if  there 
should  be  discovered  a  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  or  a  part  thereof 
written  in  1450,  or  1320  or  even  1000  B.  C.  But  we  have  noth- 
ing of  the  kind,  not  even  a  line  of  the  Pentateuch  written  on 
stone,  stucco  or  papyrus  in  an  early  period.  Not  only  so,  but 
we  have  no  positive  knowledge  whether  the  autographs  were 
written  in  the  Egyptian,  the  Assyrian  or  the  Hebrew  language, 
or  in  the  Egyptian,  the  cuneiform  or  the  Phoenician  script. 
Prior  to  1000  B.  C.  every  inch  is  disputed  territory. 

No  apology  is  needed  for  an  inquiry  into  the  facts. 

A.   THE   SCRIPT   EMPLOYED   BY   THE    HEBREWS    AFTER   EZRA. 

I.  Writing  in  Square  Characters. 

Prom  the  time  of  Ezra  (458-444)  the  Hebrews  gradually 
came  to  use  a  script  called  the  Square  or  Aramaic.  The  let- 
ters of  the  ordinary  Hebrew  Bible  of  today  are  similar  to  the 
so-called  square  characters  (see  Chart,  col.  XXVHI).  If  proof 
of  the  gradual  introduction  of  this  script  during  the  three  cen- 
turies following  Ezra  were  demanded,  it  could  be  supplied  from 
extant  speciments  of  such  writing  and  from  the  testimony  of 
the  Talmud  and  the  Church  Fathers.  Previous  to  the  Exile 
the  Hebrews  used  the  so-called  archaic  Hebrew  (Phoenician) 
script,  which,  though  the  progenitor  of  the  Aramaic  script,  dif- 
fered from  it  considerably  in  the  form  of  the  letters  (see  Chart). 
It  is  a  disputed  point  when  the  Hebrews  finally  abandoned  the 
archaic  script. 

(i).  Epigraphic  Testimony.  Seals,  gems,  coins,  and  other  epigra- 
phic  remains  testify  that  the  new  or  square  characters  gradually  dis- 
placed the  archaic  in  the  centuries  between  Ezra  and  Christ.  Not  a 
little  importance  attaches  to  the  question,  in  what  script  the  later  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  Zeohariah,  Haggai,  Malachi  and  Chronicles 
were  comxposed,  as  also  the  script  of  the  Pentateuch  which  lay  before 
the  Septuagint  translators.  It  is  possible  that  some  strange  differen- 
ces between  the  readings  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint  texts  are 
due  to  confusion  in  the  transition  from  the  archaic  to  the  square  char- 
acters. The  fact  that  the  Samaritans  never  abandoned  the  archaic 
Hebrew  script  in  favor  of  the  square  characters  is  a  proof  that  the 


EARLY  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  163 

Pentateuch  was  extant  in  that  script  about  400  B.  C.  and  a  criterion 
in  the  comparison  of  the  script  employed  by  the  Jews  after  the  Exile. 
It  is  generally  allowed  that  the  connecting  link  between  the  archaic 
and  the  square  Hebrew  script  is  supplied  by  a  bi-lingual  inscription,  that 
of  Araq  el-Emir  found  by  Clermont-Ganneau  near  Emmaus,  It  is  not 
earlier  than  the  fourth  pre-Christian  century;  the  characters  are  quite 
similar  to  those  on  the  Asmonean  coins   (Lidzbarski). 

(2).  Testimony  of  the  Talmudists  and  the  Fathers.  The  Talmud 
says :  "Originally  the  law  was  given  to  Israel  in  the  Hehreiv  character 
and  in  the  sacred  tongue :  it  was  given  again  to  them,  in  the  days  of 
Ezra,  in  the  Assyrian  character  and  in  the  Aramaic  tongue"  {Sanh. 
21  b).  The  former  phrase  means  archaic  Hebrew,  the  latter  the 
square  Hebrew  script.''  Origen  states  that  in  accurate  MSS.  the  sa- 
cred name  was  written  in  archaic  characters  unlike  those  in  ordinary  use 
in  his  day.  In  the  commentary  on  Ezek.  9 :  4,  Origen  adds  that  a 
converted  Jew  told  him  that  in  the  archaic  style  the  letter  taw  had 
the  form-  of  a  cross  (which  is  correct).  Jerome,  Epiphanius  and 
Jewish  rabbis  either  intimate  or  directly  affirm  that  a  change  of  char- 
acter was  introduced  by  Ezra,  and  that  the  Samaritans  alone  retained 
the   archaic  script. 

2.  Indeterminateness  of  Date. 

As  seen  above,  the  evidence  is  conclusive  that  the  archaic 
Hebrew  script  was  used  among  the  Jews  on  seals  and  coins  long 
after  the  Exile.  The  remarkable  fact  is  that  on  all  the  Jewish 
coins  of  the  pre-Christian  period  the  writing  is  not  in  the 
square,  but  in  the  archaic  characters.  As  we  just  saw,  certain 
of  the  inscriptions  of  the  third  and  second  centuries  B.  C.  are  in 
square  letters.  If  the  Talmudic  statement  that  Ezra  intro- 
duced the  square  letters  be  correct,  it  would  seem  that  the  two 
scripts  were  employed  side  by  side  for  several  centuries.  In 
fact  the  recovered  seals  and  coins  indicate  that  the  old  charac- 
ters were  understood,  if  not  actually  employed,  by  the  people 
until  about  the  middle  of  the  first  century  B.  C.,  if  not  to  the 
Christian  era.* 

B.    PHOENICIAN   SCRIPT  EMPLOYED  BY   HEBREWS  FROM    DATE  OF  EXODUS. 

I.  The  Script  from  900  to  400  B.  C. 
We  proceed  to  trace  the  script  employed  in  Israel  prior  to 
Ezra. 


5  On  the  use  of  the  term  "Assyrian"  in  such  a  connection  Ad.  Neubauer 
says:  "In  Greek  writers  Assyria  is  often  employed  for  Aramaic  countries,  which 
were  later  called  Syria.  In  fact  the  name  of  Syria  is  derived  from  the  name 
Assyria.  Even  the  svstem  of  vowel-points  employed  in  the  eighth  century  A.  D. 
in  some  Eastern  schools,  which  are  placed  above  the  letters,  is  termed  the  Assy- 
rian punctuation,  while  the  system  used  by  the  Western  school  is  called  the 
Palestinian    Punctuation"    (Sudia   Bihlica,    III). 

*  The  fact  that  some  four  centuries  elapsed  before  the  square  script  sup- 
planted the  archaic  is  proof  additional  to  that  already  given  that  some  four  or 
five  centuries  would  be  required  for  the  wide  dissemination  of  the  Phoenician 
script  before  the  date  of  the  Moabite  Stone. 


164  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

(i).  Evidence  from  Seals.  Attention  has  already  been 
directed  to  the  large  number  of  coins  and  seals  in  the  archaic 
Hebrew  script.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that  even  after  the  square 
script  had  been  adopted,  the  archaic  script  was  still  retained  a 
long  time  on  coins. 

Of  the  specifically  Hebrew  seals  we  have  a  sufficient  num- 
ber to  trace  the  development  of  the  script  from  the  ninth  pre- 
Christian  century  to  the  final  abandonment  of  the  archaic  let- 
ters. Recently  a  considerable  number  of  post-Exilic  seals  has 
come  to  light,  but  here  a  brief  notice  must  suffice.  Among 
them  is  a  seal  with  the  inscription  "Belonging  to  'Asiyu,  son 
of  Yokim".     The  date  according  to  Cooke  is  5 — 4  century. 

(2).  Pre-Exilic  Seals.  The  pre-Exilic  seals,  described 
above,  chap.  VII,  furnish  abundant  proof  that  the  old  Hebrew 
script  was  in  general  use  in  Israel  from  the  ninth  century  on- 
ward. The  El  Siggeb  seal  and  the  two  Hananiahu  seals  may 
be  taken  as  types  of  the  writing  of  the  7 — 6  century  B.  C.  The 
number  of  seals  from  this  period  would  indicate  that  many  men 
of  rank,  and  even  women,  had  their  seals.^  Other  seals  of  this 
period  are  those  bearing  the  legends :  ''Haggai,  the  son  of 
Shebaniah",  "Uzziahu,  the  son  of  Hareph",  "Maasayahu,  son 
of  Meshaliem"  and  "Joshua,  the  son  of  Asayahu".  Of  a  some- 
what earlier  date  probably  are  the  following :  "Shebaniah,  son 
of  Uzziah",  "Obadiah,  servant  of  the  King"  and  "Schema,  ser- 
vant of  the  King".  All  these  specimens  of  Hebrew  script  tes- 
tify to  the  quite  general  use  of  writing  among  the  Hebrews  in 
the  ninth  century  B.  C.  It  is  logically  certain  that  the  contem- 
poraneous books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  written  in  Hebrew 
and  in  the  archaic  Hebrew  script. 

(^).  Longer  Archaic  Hebrew  Inscriptions.  Additional 
evidence  of  the  use  of  the  archaic  script  in  Israel  is  found  in 
the  so-called  longer  inscriptions,  especially  the  Siloam  and 
Gezer.  The  former  is  proof  positive  that  in  700  B.  C.  this 
script  was  in  such  general  use  that  workmen  in  excavating  the 
Siloam  tunnel  recorded  briefly  a  few  facts  regarding  it.  The 
comparatively  regular  forms  of  the  letters  and  the  fact  that 
ordinary  laborers  had  the  interest  to  record  and  the  skill  to 
execute  such  an  inscription  in  an  out-of-the-way  and  almost 
inaccessible  place  are  incontestable  evidence  that  writing  in  this 


^  This  implies,  not  that  the  owner  could  not  write  or  that  writing  was  not 
generally  practiced,  but  rather  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  age  and  was  found 
convenient  (just  as  in  Assyria  and  Egypt)  to  carry  a  seal  ready  for  use  and  as 
a  protection   against   a  spurious  signature   or  authentication. 


EARLY  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  165 

script  was  a  well-known  and  quite  generally  practiced  art  in 
Israel  in  the  eighth  century. 

a.  Proof  from  the  Gezer  Calendar  Tablet.  Perhaps  the 
most  striking  proof  of  the  script  employed  by  the  Hebrews  in 
800  B.  C.  is  furnished  by  the  Gezer  Calendar  Tablet.  This 
recently  discovered  witness  (1908)  of  the  script  in  use  in  the 
ninth  century  merits  further  notice  here.  (See  above,  chap. 
VII).  Of  its  antiquity  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  great  body 
of  Semitic  epigraphists,  as  Gray,  Halevy,  Lidzbarski,  Ronze- 
valle  and  Macalister,  pronounce  it  as  certainly  not  later  than  the 
ninth  century.  Lidzbarski,  the  highest  authority  in  Europe, 
regards  the  characters  without  exception  as  archaic,  there  being 
no  late  forms  whatever. 

h.  Evidence  from  the  Jeroboam  Seal.  The  Jeroboam  seal 
enables  us  to  carry  the  use  of  the  archaic  script  back  to  a  still 
earlier  period.  The  leading  authorities  assign  it  to  Jeroboam  I 
(935 — 15)  rather  than  to  Jeroboam  II  (781 — 41).  According 
to  Kautzsch  ''no  one  is  able  to  show  that  this  type  of  script  un- 
derwent material  change  in  the  period  between  Jeroboam  I  and 
Mesha.  In  fact  the  character  of  the  Greek  alphabet,  which 
had  evidently  branched  off  before  the  tenth  century,  points  to 
a  long  period  of  stability  in  the  oldest  types".  Lidzbarski  ex- 
presses himself  emphatically  in  favor  of  the  earlier  date: 
*The  script  has  the  oldest  general  impress  of  the  Semitic 
alphabet.  The  period  in  which  the  same  writing  as  that 
upon  the  seal  was  in  general  use,  was  long  before  that 
of  the  Jeroboam.  Accordingly  the  script  would  point  to  the 
age  of  Jeroboam  I"  (op.  cit.).  These  conjectures  have  been 
signally  borne  out  by  the  character  of  the  script  of  the  Samaria 
Ostaka  described  above  (chap.  VI).  Important  consequences 
follow\  The  Jeroboam  seal  is  a  scarabaeoid  of  jasper,  and  is 
in  a  high  style  of  art.  The  letters  are  characterized  by  freedom 
and  regularity  of  execution  and  imply  a  long  period  of  per- 
manence of  fonns.  The  skill  to  produce  an  artistic  work  of  this 
sort  could  not  have  sprung  up  over  night,  but  was  the  result 
of  a  long  period  of  practice  and  experimentation. 

c.  The  Samaria  Inscriptions.  The  most  decisive  evidence 
remains  to  be  noticed.  As  described  above  (pp.,  114 — 6), 
there  were  discovered  in  1910  on  the  site  of  the  ancient  city  of 
Samaria,  some  seventy-five  archaic  Hebrew  inscriptions,  which 
from  their  age  and  character  are  of  such  signal  importance  as 
to  form  a  new  era  in  Hebrew  epigraphy.     Remains  of  the  only 


l66  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

palace  of  a  Hebrew  king  ever  found  were  unearthed ;  and 
many  objects  of  interest  containing  writing  were  found.  In  a 
certain  room  *Vas  found  an  alabaster  vase  inscribed  with  the 
name  of  Ahab's  contemporary,  Osorkon  II  of  Egypt.  The 
words  are  divided  by  ink  spots,  and  the  reading  of  many  of 
the  records  is  perfectly  clear.  The  script  is  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Siloam  Tunnel  and  of  the  Moabite  Stone.  To  the  eighth 
or  ninth  century  therefore  we  should  assign  the  ostraca  even 

if  they  had  not  been  found  in  the  Ahab  building It 

seems  obvious  that  these  ostraka  are  of  the  nature  of  labels 
attached  to  jars  or  groups  of  jars  in  a  store-room  adjoining 
the  palace,  and  that  they  indicate  origin,  ownership,  and  in 
most  cases  character  of  the  contents". 

As  these  inscriptions  fall  between  900  and  850  B.  C.  they 
furnish  overwhelming  proof  of  our  contention  that  the  archaic 
Phoenician  script  was  in  use  in  Israel  quite  generally  at  a  very 
early  date.  As  says  Prof.  Lyon  :  ''That  these  ostraca  are  very 
precious  from  an  epigraphic  and  linguistic  point  of  view  is  ob- 
vious. The  script  is  beautiful  and  flowing,  thus  showing  much 
practise  in  writing  with  the  pen.  We  have  here  for  the  first 
time  a  large  number  of  Hebrew  proper  names  of  definite  and 
early  date  preserved  on  contemporary  records.  And  when  we 
consider  that  the  amount  of  writing  here  is  far  greater  than 
all  other  Hebrew  writings  yet  known,  the  discovery  may  be 
called  epoch-making"  (op.  cit.).  These  "finds"  are  indeed 
"epoch-making",  for  they  allay  all  doubt  as  to  the  language 
and  script  employed  by  the  Hebrews  in  900  B.  C.® 

2.  The  Hebrezv  Script  between  1350  and  goo  B.  C. 

It  is  clear  that  the  archaic  Hebrew  script  was  employed 
for  commercial  and  literary  purposes  from  the  tenth  century 
onward.  The  preceding  examples  are  a  sufficient  proof.  How 
far  back  of  this  can  we  go?  Here  the  argument  is  that  of 
analogy.  The  older  Stade-Wellhausen  school  hold  that  the 
Hebrews  practically  had  no  knowledge  of  this  script  until  about 
1000  B.  C.  A  more  recent  school,  or  rather  certain  scholars  of 
different  schools,  contend  that  whatever  writing  there  may  have 
been  was  in  the  Babylonian  language  and  script.  The  view 
adopted  here  is  that  the  Phoenician  script  was  introduced  into 

*  Kittel  well  says:  "Here  then  the  Samaria  inscriptions  are  significant.  What 
previously  was  highly  probable  has  now  become  a  certainty.  If  the  Phoenician 
script  was  used  on  ostraca  already  in  900  B.  C,  it  must  have  been  employed  on 
papyrus,  skins,  stone  and  clay  a  long  time  previously"  (Theolog,  Literaturb., 
Feb.,.  191 1). 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  167 

Israel  about  the  time  of  the  Exodus  and  was  employed  contin- 
uously in  the  composition  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(i).  A  Suitable  Script  Necessary.  That  a  considerable 
body  of  Hebrew  literature  had  grown  up  in  the  pre-Davidic 
period  is  certain.  ''The  Book  of  Jashar",  "The  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Jehovah",  ''Deborah's  Triumphal  Ode"  and  other  pro- 
ductions were  unquestionably  composed  in  the  two  or  three  cen- 
turies preceding-  the  reign  of  David.  If  it  be  held  that  Moses 
and  Joshua,  or  their  scribes,  drew  up  historical  memoranda  and 
a  code  of  laws,  it  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  face  the  question  of 
the  language  and  script  in  which  such  Hterature  was  embodied. 

While  it  is  true  that  the  cuneiform  script  reproduces  Ca- 
naanite  (Hebrew)  words  in  the  Amarna  Tablets  and  possesses 
in  fact  all  the  sounds  of  the  Hebrew,  it  is  such  a  complicated 
syllabary  that  it  was  never  regarded  as  convenient  or  popular, 
even  among  the  Assyrians,  as  the  Aramaic  notes  on  Assyrian 
contracts  show.  Much  less  probable  is  it  that  this  foreign  lan- 
guage and  script  was  employed  by  the  Hebrew  people,  even  if 
the  guild  of  scribes  employed  it  in  foreign  correspondence  and 
perhaps  monumental  records.  No  proof  whatever  exists  that 
the  Assyrian  language  and  script  was  in  use  at  this  time  in 
Israel  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  life  and  literature.  The 
Gezer  Calendar  Tablet,  the  Jeroboam  seal  and  the  numerous 
Samaria  ostraca  show  unquestionably  that  the  archaic  Hebrew 
was  the  current  script  in  900-800.  The  fact  that  the  Phoenician 
script  was  in  extensive  use  in  900  is  strong  prima  facie  evidence 
that  it  must  have  been  introduced  a  long  time  previously.  It 
follows  that  in  the  David- Solomon  period  the  Hebrew  language 
and  script  were  employed  for  all  literary  purposes."^ 

(2).  No  Transition  in  the  Script.  The  Hebrew  text  ex- 
hibits no  trace  of  any  such  confusion  as  would  result  if 
the  cuneiform  had  been  used  originally  and  then  translated  or 
transliterated  into  Hebrew.  The  phenomena  generally  relied 
upon  to  prove  such  a  source  are  found  even  in  greater  degree 
in  later  books,  and  so  the  argument  would  extend  to  the  whole 
Old  Testament,  which  not  even  the  most  zealous  Panbabylonist 
would  allow.  The  argument  proves  nothing.  The  Book  of 
Jashar  affords  conclusive  proof  that  one  and  the  same  language 
and  script  was  employed  from  the  first.  This  book  was  begun 
a  century  or  two  before  the  time  of  David,  and  completed  dur- 


^  The    Gezer    cuneiform   tablets    of    the    seventh    century    B.    C.    which    might 
seem  to  be  an  exception,  are  reviewed  below,  sec.  D,  2. 


l68  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

ing  or  after  his  reign,  for  it  contains  the  "Lament  over  Saul 
and  Jonathan",  which  was  unquestionably  written  in  the  He- 
brew language  and  script;  and  so  was  the  remainder  of  th^ 
book. 

An  equally  cogent  proof  is  furnished  by  Deborah's  Ode, 
which  is  allowed  by  critics  of  all  shades  to  be  contemporaneous 
with  the  event  celebrated.  The  Hebrew  text  is  in  a  fairly  good 
state,  excepting  vs.  8-15.  This  one  instance  of  confusion  in 
the  text  is  due,  however,  not  to  a  transcription  of  the  Ode  from 
the  cuneiform  to  the  Hebrew  script,  but  to  some  mischance  in 
the  transmission  of  the  Hebrew  script.  A  comparison  of  the 
Hebrew  with  the  phonograms  and  ideograms  that  would  be  em- 
ployed in  the  Assyrian  reveals  no  trace  of  a  cuneiform  text. 
The  only  alternative  is  that  it  was  composed  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage and  script. 

(j).  Early  Adoption  of  Phoenician  Script.  As  shown 
above,  the  Phoenician  script  was  certainly  invented  about  1500 
B.  C.  This  conclusion  remains  unshaken;  else  there  is  no 
science  of  alphabetology  or  of  Semitic  epigraphy.  The  Phoeni- 
cian script  was  unquestionably  in  use,  perhaps  in  wide  use,  at 
the  date  of  the  Exodus,  whether  that  be  placed  in  1200,  1300,  or 
even  1450.  The  only  question  that  remains  is  whether  the 
people  of  Israel  had  a  knowledge  of  it  and  were  fairly  well 
skilled  in  its  use  at  the  Exodus. 

(4).  Phonician  Script  among  Surrounding  People.  It  matter  little 
here,  by  whom  the  Phoenician  alphabet  was  invented.  On  our  theory 
the  credit  falls  to  the  Phoenicians;  in  any  event  it  was  gradually  com- 
municated to  and  adopted  by  surrounding  people  (Moabites,  Ammon- 
ites, Aramaeans,  Arabians,  etc).  A  people  as  quick-witted  and  re- 
sourceful as  the  Hebrews,  whether  still  in  Egypt,  in  the  Desert,  or  in 
Canaan,  would  not  be  slow  to  adopt  the  simple  and  time-saving  de- 
vice. Though  the  Moabite  Stone  is  the  solitary  witness  of  the  art  of 
writing  in  early  times  among  that  peopk,  it  affords  incontestable  proof 
that  writing  and  literature  had  flourished  there  several  centuries.  The 
Moabites  must  have  gotten  the  Phoenician  script  at  least  several  cen- 
tures  before  Mesha,  i.  e.  not  later  than  the  twelfth;  otherwise  it  is  im- 
possible to  account  for  the  difference  between  the  Moabite  script  and 
the  earliest  types  of  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic.  The  Phoenician  script 
was  certainly  known  at  Gebal  (Byblos)  in  1200  B.  C.® 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  Moabites  were  superior  to  their  neigh- 
bors in  cultural  attainments;   indeed,  but  for  the  accidental  discovery 

«  This  is  shown  from  the  "Diary  of  Wenamon",  an  Egyptian  officer  who 
made  a  journey  to  Gebal  in  1150  B.  C.  In  the  course  of  the  narrative  we  are 
told  that  the  Phoenician  prince  caused  the  journals  of  his  fathers  to  be  read.  As 
these  were  doubtless  in  the  Pnoenician  language  and  script  and  ancient,  the  date 
was  anywhere  between  1400  and   1200. 


EARLY  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  169 

of  the  Moabite  Stone  we  should  be  disposed  to  place  them  low  in  the 
scale  of  civilization.  The  somewhat  singular  fact  that  but  one  mon- 
ument of  their  graphic  and  literary  skill  has  been  preserved,  does  not 
indeed  prove  absolutely  a  poverty  or  ideas,  but  it  at  leasts  suggests 
that  they  produced  little  of  permanent  worth.  Comparing  this  with  the 
transcendent  character  of  Hebrew  achievement,  from  the  time  of  David 
and  Solomon,  we  must  conclude  that  a  people  who,  as  all  admit,  were 
in  the  height  of  intellectual  and  literary  fame  in  the  tenth  century, 
must  have  had  a  long  period  of  preparation  before  they  could  have 
achieved  such  results.  If  the  Moabites,  Sidonians,  Tyrians  and  Ara- 
maeans at  an  early  date  acquired  the  Phoenician  script,  what  hindered 
the  Hebrews,  even  though  yet  in  Egypt,  but  in  contact  with  the  outer 
world  (through  association  with  Palestinian  traders),  from  acquiring 
the  art?  It  is  utterly  preposterous  to  suppose  that  while  Phoenicians, 
Moabites  and  Aramaeans  were  composing  long  inscriptions  in  their 
native  dialects  the  Hebrews  had  no  literature  at  all,  or  wrote  in  the 
Assyrian  language  and  script. 

(^).  Moses  and  the  Minaean  Alphabet.  Much  can  be  said 
in  support  of  Hommers  view  that  the  Hebrews  before  the  Exo- 
dus acquired  the  alphabet  in  the  Minsean  or  South  Arabic  form 
and  that  Moses  employed  it  in  his  writings.  Moses  spent  forty 
years  in  Midian  and  came  under  the  influence  of  an  advanced 
Semitic  civilization,  and  nothing  prevents  our  holding  that 
he  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  Minaean  script  then  current 
in  Midian.  All  recent  authorities  agree  that  not  only  South- 
em,  but  also  Western  Arabia  was  in  early  times  the  center 
of  a  high  civilization.  According  to  Winckler,  "The  land 
which  produced  the  Yemen  culture  with  its  countless  inscrip- 
tions and  great  structures  was  no  province  in  which  Beduin 
life  controlled  the  intellectual  culture It  is  impos- 
sible that  N.  Arabia  should  have  been  uninfluenced  by  the 
civilization  of  Hither  Asia.  Such  settlements  as  Teima, 
Mekka,  Medina,  are  primitive  cities,  in  which  cults  and  cul- 
tures prevailed,  common  to  Arabia  and  Hither  Asia  as  mem- 
bers of  one  family"  (Keils.  u.  A.  T.,  138).  Winckler  allows 
that  the  Minaean  civilization  has  a  value  "for  Biblical  antiquity 
of  no  less  significance  than  that  of  the  Euphrates  Valley.  The 
acme  of  the  older  kingdom  of  S.  Arabia  coincides  with  the 
rise  of  Israel". 

Having  observed  that  certain  Hebrew  forms  are  similar  to 
the  early  Minaean,  Hommel  proceeds:  "The  only  possible  in- 
ference that  can  be  drawn  from  this  is  that  both  the  Moabites 
and  Hebrews,  during  the  period  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Canaanite  language,  that  is  while  they  still  spoke  a  pure  Arabic 
dialect,  must  have  originally  employed  the  Minaean  script  in 
place  of  the  so-called  Phoenician  or  Canaanitish"  (274).    That 


170  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Moses  was  conversant  with  Midianite  culture  and  perhaps  with 
the  Minsean  script  is  evident  from  several  considerations.  Mid- 
ian,  which  plays  such  an  important  part  in  the  history  of  Moses, 
is  mentioned  in  the  Min^an  inscriptions  under  the  name  Muts- 
ram ;  its  geographical  position  as  given  in  the  Old  Testament 
concides  with  the  Minsean  Mutsram.  Moses  during  his  40 
years  sojourn  in  Midian  probably  learned  the  Minxan  script. 

In  a  recent  work,  Hommel  adduces  additional  proof  for 
his  view :  "It  is  clear  that  in  the  Minaean  inscriptions  as  in  the 
Sabsean,  we  have  two  only  slightly  different  branches  of  an 
archaic  idiom  early  acquiring  a  fixed  literary  form,  in  other 
words,  a  so-called  literary  language,  Vv^hich  changed  but  httle 
from  the  middle  of  the  second  pre-Christian  millennium  (Mi- 
nsean) to  the  eighth  (Sabsean),  and  thence  to  the  time  of  Islam. 
This  monumental  language  represents  one  and  the  same  civiU- 
zation  extending  over  two  thousand  years"  (Griindr.  d.  Geog.  u. 
Gesch.,  150).  It  is  the  fashion  in  some  Grafian  circles  to  be- 
little Hommel's  conclusions,  but  the  correctness  of  many  of  his 
positions  is  corroborated  every  day  by  fresh  evidence  from  the 
excavations  in  the  East;  and  the  cumulative  proof  looks  in 
the  direction  of  a  high  civilization  in  Midian  and  Arabia  in 
1 800- 1 500,  and  of  an  alphabet  antedating  in  some  respects  the 
Phoenician.®  The  existence  of  an  early  Minaean  script  is  there- 
fore no  longer  an  open  question ;  a  reasonable  doubt  exists, 
however,  whether  the  roots  of  this  script  go  back  as  far  as 
Hommel  traces  them,  namely  2000  B.  C.  In  any  event,  IMoses 
and  the  Hebrews  of  his  day  may  well  have  been  in  possession 
of  an  alphabetic  script,  either  the  Phoenician  (the  more  probable 
view),  or  the  Minaean  (less  probable ).^° 

(6).  The  Phoenician  Script  Long  a  Scriptura  Privata. 
The  contention  that  the  Phoenician  script  was  not  in  existence 
in  1400  B.  C.  because  it  is  not  employed  in  the  Amarna  Letters 
is  without  much  force.  The  Babylonian  language  and  script 
had  for  centuries  been  the  medium  of  correspondence  and  was 
understood  at  the  Egyptian,  Hittite,  Mitannian,  Canaanite  and 
other  courts;  the  Phoenician  would  not  have  gained  general 
recognition  within  less  than  two  or  three  centuries  after  its  ori- 
gin.    The  cuneiform  was  the  scriphira  sacra  et  piihlica;     the 


*  "The  Phoenician  characters,  even  when  employed  on  monuments,  create 
the  impression  of  having  been  designed  originally  for  cursive  writing  on  papyrus; 
East  Arabia  was  in  fact  the  home  of  the  date-palm"    (Hommel,  op.  cit.). 

^^  Hommel  conceives  that  the  Mosaic  writings,  originally  composed  in  the 
Minsean  script,   were    subsequently   transcribed    into    the    Phoenician. 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  I7I 

Phoenician  circulated   a  long  time   as  a  scriptura  profana  et 
privata. 

(y).  Phoenician  Alphabet  Knozvn  to  Hebrezvs  in  Moses- 
Joshua  Age.  It  is  a  well  ascertained  fact  that  the  Oriental 
world  in  the  age  of  Moses  'Svas  as  highly  educated  and  literary 
as  was  Europe  in  the  age  of  the  Renaissance".  Outside  of  the 
Old  Testament  the  literature  thus  far  recovered  is  chiefly 
Egyptian  and  Babylonian.  That  Moses  and  his  scribes  under- 
stood and  employed  the  cuneiform  is  unquestioned.  If  the 
petty  princelings  of  Canaan  and  the  chiefs  of  the  Beduin  tribes 
could  write  letters  in  cuneiform,  we  may  be  sure  that  Moses  and 
the  higher  classes  in  Israel  (the  Shoterim  and  heads  of  clans) 
could  also.  Much  greater  would  be  their  desire  to  acquire  the 
new  and  simple  alphabet  designed  especially  for  their  native 
tongue  (for  they  retained  the  Hebrew  in  Egypt). ^^ 

The  place-names  Kiriath-sepher  and  Kiriath-sannah 
(which  are  Hebrew)  do  not  appear  to  be  translations  from  the 
Assyrian ;  and  so  the  books  deposited  there  were  at  least  in 
part  in  the  Canaanite  language  and  script.  The  Grafians  con- 
stantly urge  that  a  considerable  part  of  Israel's  culture  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  Canaanites.  If  such  be  the  case  (which  may 
be  doubted)  what  hindered  the  Israelites  from  obtaining  the  al- 
phabet from  them  as  early  as  the  time  of  Joshua  ?  Subsequent 
history  shows  that  the  Israelites  were  superior  to  the  Canaanites 
morally  and  intellectually.  In  fact  the  Canaanites  were  simply 
outclassed.^2  And  yet  this  degenerate  people  were  according 
to  the  current  criticism  the  superiors  and  teachers  of  the  sturdy 
Hebrews !  !  The  evidence  shows  that  Israel  at  the  time  of  the 
Conquest  l^ad  already  acquired  the  alphabet  and  was  not  depen- 
dent upon  the  Canaanites. 

Kittel  sees  in  the  report  of  the  Egyptian  traveller  Wen- 
Amon  proof  that  papyrus  was  in  great  demand  in  Palestine  as 
writing  material  in  iioo  B.  C.  One  passage  speaks  of  500 
papyrus  rolls  which  the  Egyptians  are  to  send  to  Byblos  in  pay- 
ment for  Lebanon  wood.  That  this  papyrus  was  to  be  used  for 
writing  purposes  cannot  be  doubted ;  and  the  passage  proves 
"that  at  this  time  literature  was  extensivelv  cultivated  in  Syria 


"  "We  cannot  suppose  that  a  people  acquainted  with  that  mode  of  writing 
(namely,  the  cuneiform)  would  relapse  into  illiterates  when  the  Phoenician  alpha- 
bet took  its  place;  much  more  reasonable  is  it  to  suppose  that  this  discovery 
would  be  an  immense  stimulus  to  them"  (J.  Robertson,  Early  Rehg.  of  Is.,  p.,  78). 

12  What  literature  have  we  from  the  Canaanites,  of  whom  the  Grafians  make 
so  much?     Practically  none  at   all.     A  few  seals  and  gems  are   not   literature. 


172  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

and  Palestine".  The  papyrus  was  to  be  delivered  at  Byblos, 
the  emporium  of  the  Canaanite  book-trade ;  from  which  point 
it  was  distributed  to  the  surrounding  towns.  "What  Kiriath- 
sepher  was  to  the  South,  Byblos  was  to  the  North"  (Theolog. 
Literath.,  Feb.,  1911).  Nothing  forbids  our  holding  that  the 
Hebrews  at  this  time  and  indeed  from  the  time  of  Moses  used 
papyrus  rolls  for  their  sacred  literature,  as  indeed  the  constant 
occurrence  of  the  word  ''book"  implies.  The  probability  that 
the  earliest  Old  Testament  books  were  written  on  papyrus 
would  account  for  their  disappearance. 

The  same  account  of  Wen-Amon  refers  to  a  monument  on 
which  the  prince  of  Byblos  records  one  of  his  exploits.  The 
script  was  obviously  that  of  the  natives,  namely  the  Phoenician 
and  not  the  cuneiform  or  hieratic.  ''Hence  we  are  driven  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  North-Semitic,  Canaanite  alphabet  (even 
if  not  exactly  in  the  later  form)  was  in  common  use  in  iioo 
B.  C."  (Kittel). 

(8).  Hozi}  the  Hebrews  Acquired  the  Phoenician  Script. 
Our  ignorance  of  the  route  by  which  the  Hittites,  Mitannians, 
Cappadocians  and  Palestinians  adopted  the  cuneiform  script 
is  tenfold  greater  than  our  knowledge.  Until  the  Grafians  can 
tell  us  how  the  Mitannians  acquired  the  cuneiform  as  far  back  at 
least  as  1500  B.  C,  or  how  the  Hittites  came  to  employ  the 
same  syllabary,  or  how  and  why  the  Cappadocians  and  Canaan- 
ites  adopted  the  same  system  of  writing,  we  need  not  hesitate 
to  affirm  that  our  ignorance  of  the  exact  manner  in  which  the 
Hebrews  at  an  early  date  acquired  the  Phoenician  script  is  no 
bar  to  an  acceptance  of  the  fact.  Again,  who  can  tell  us,  by 
what  route  the  Moabites  acquired  the  alphabet  at  a  date  so 
remote  that  it  was  thoroughly  naturalized  in  the  tenth  pre- 
Christian  century?  Only  yesterday  there  came  to  light  an 
Aramaic  monument  (that  of  Zakar,  ninth  century  B.  C.)  from 
a  king  and  kingdom  somewhere  in  Northern  Syria,  of  whose 
existence  men  had  never  dreamed. 

How  can  we  account  for  the  use  of  the  Phoenician  script  in 
Cyprus  (where  the  Baal-Lebanon  inscription  was  found)  in 
1000  B.  C,  and  in  Zinjirli  not  much  later?  How  was  the 
Phoenician  alphabet  introduced  into  widely  separated  regions  at 
an  early  date?  No  one  knows;  we  know  simply  the  fact.  In 
our  lack  of  evidence  regarding  the  history  of  the  cuneiform, 
Phoenician  and  other  scripts,  we  do  not  consider  it  incumbent 
upon  us  to  prove  with  mathematical  accuracy  the  manner  in 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  173 

which  the  Hebrews  acquired  the  alphabet;  enough,  however, 
is  known  to  disprove  the  assumed  late  date  (looo  B.  C.)  as- 
signed by  the  Grafians,  and  to  establish  an  early  date  (circa 
1400  B.  C). 

C.    THE  HEBREWS   AND  THE  EGYPTIAN  LANGUAGE  AND   SCRIPT. 

1.  Hebreics  Learned  the  Egyptian  Language  and  Writing. 

Something  can  be  said  to  support  the  contention  that  the 
Hebrews  while  in  Egypt  learned  the  Egyptian  mode  of  writ- 
ing and  used  it  at  the  date  of  the  Exodus.  It  would  be  a  thing 
unparalled  in  the  history  of  human  development,  if  a  people  as 
talented  as  the  Israelites  had  not  learned  to  write  the  ordinary 
Egyptian  script.  As  seen  above,  writing  was  practised  by  the 
Egyptians  of  all  ranks.  From  the  number  of  recovered  school 
exercises  and  of  other  proofs  of  writing,  it  would  appear  that 
almost  every  Egyptian  acquired  the  art.  The  relation  of  the 
Hebrews  to  the  Egyptians  was  of  a  character  to  afford  ample 
opportunity  to  acquire  the  art.  Though  in  general  dwelling 
apart,  they  nevertheless  came  into  daily  contact  with  each  other, 
as  shown  in  the  Biblical  narrative.  Some  Egyptians  doubtless 
learned  the  Hebrew  language  ;^^  the  more  favorably  situated 
Hebrews  either  from  necessity  or  inclination  acquired  a  know- 
ledge of  the  Egyptian  language  and  script.  On  the  very  day 
of  the  Exodus  the  children  of  Israel  '"'asked  of  the  Egyptians 
jewels  of  silver  and  jewels  of  gold  and  raiment,  ....  and 
they  let  them  have  what  they  asked"  (Ex.  12  :  35).^*  From  this 
it  may  be  inferred  that  the  Egyptians  and  Hebrews  lived  in 
close  proximity,  visiting  back  and  forth,  becoming  in  turn  each 
other's  guests  and  of  course  speaking,  now  Hebrew  now  Egyp- 
tian, according  to  the  ability  and  preference  of  individuals.  It 
is  altogether  probable  that  during  four  hundred  years'  sojourn 
in  Egypt,  the  Israelites  became  in  large  degree  a  bi-lingual 
people. 

2.  Was  the  Egyptian  Script  Employed  in  Writing  Hebrew? 
Attention   has  already  been   directed   to  the   fact    (see   chap.    IX) 

that  the  Egyptians  by  means  of  the  Standard  Alphabet  of  25  letters 


"  Rawlinson  says:  "As  all  educated  Romans  in  the  days  of  Cicero  learned 
Greek  and  all  Russians  in  the  time  of  Alexander  I  were  taught  French,  so  in  the 
days  of  Moses  all  educated  Egyptians  had  to  be  familiar  with  a  Semitic  dialect, 
which  if  not  exactly  Hebrew,  was  at  any  rate  closely  akin  to  it  (Moses  and  his 
Time^J-  ^^  ^^.  ^^  ^^^^  ^g  ^^^  g^j^g  gflfgj.t      The  latest  critical  com- 

mentary on  Exodus  says:  "According  to  E,  the  Israelites  lived  among  the  Egyo- 
tians  not  separate  in  Goshen.  The  sojourners  would  be  either  friends  staying 
as  visitors,  or  possibly  female  slaves  or  hired  servants".  (McNeile,  Book  of 
Exodus,   20). 


174  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

were  accustomed  to  write  Semitic  words,  as  attested  by  extant  papy- 
rus rolls.  The  Hebrews  acquainted  with  the  hieratic  script  could  with 
some  little  experimentation  select  a  sufficient  number  of  current  con- 
ventional signs  for  the  expression  of  Hebrew  words  and  sentences.^^ 
A  people  to  whom  subsequent  history  ascribes  a  high  order  of  inventive 
ability  and  literary  skill  would  certainly  find  means  of  writing  down 
simple  Hebrew  sentences  by  the  aid  of  the  Egyptian  syllabary.  The 
influence  of  the  Egyptians  on  the  Israelites  was  of  such  a  character 
culturally  and  religiously  that  the  Exodus  was  a  necessity  if  Israel  were 
to  fulfill  its  mission  and  escape  the  contamination  of  Egypt. 

Nothing  forbids  our  holding  that  the  Hebrews  at  the  Exodus  had 
acquired  a  knowledge  of  writing  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  use 
Egyptian  characters  in  writing  Hebrew.  "As  far  back  as  the  XI 
dynasty  (c.  2060)  the  Egyptians  adopted  ?.  new  method  of  writing 
proper  names,  particularly  foreign  names.  Instead  of  using  signs  for 
the  consonants  only,  as  was  the  case  in  the  ordinary  script,  they  began 
to  employ  signs  for  syllables  composed  of  consonants  with  the  vowels, 
a,  e,  u"  (Paton,  Early  Hist.  Sy.  and  Pal,  p.,  50).  As  the  Hebrews 
dwelt  in  Goshen  not  far  from  the  capital  and  the  seats  of  culture,  they 
naturally  became  acquainted  with  the  system  of  expressing  foreign 
words  in  the  select  or  special  Egyptian  alphabet.  These  considera- 
tions meet  the  objections  of  Reuss  that  neither  the  mass  of  the  people 
nor  the  Levites  could  read  or  write." 

3.  Literary  Attainments  of  Moses. 

The  priinary  question  here  is  whether  Moses  had  the  requi- 
site literary  quaUfications  to  compose  laws  and  to  write  them  in 
Hebrew.  The  statement  that  ''Moses  was  instructed  in  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  Egyptians"  (Acts  7:  22)  is  interpreted  dififer- 
ently  by  the  two  opposing  schools  of  Old  Testament  criticism. 
The  conservatives  regard  the  passage  as  a  direct  proof  of  their 
contention  that  Moses  had  a  knowledge  of  writing  sufficient 
for  that  day.  The  Grafians  find  here  no  historical  credibility, 
but,  in  the  language  of  Stade,  only  *'a  haggadic  development 
of  the  legendary  eleinents  of  the  Exodus-narratives"  (A.  T. 
Theologie,  Seite,  38).  The  correct  position,  briefly  stated,  is 
to  this  effect :  "The  adopted  son  of  a  princess  required  a  prince- 
ly education This  was  to  fit  him  for  a  high  office  un- 
der the  government,  if  not  even  for  the  Egyptian  throne.  But 
in  God's  intention  it  was  to  fit  him  for  the  leadership  of  the 
Hebrews.  He  was  possessed  of  great  natural  ability,  and  the 
training  which  he  received  schooled  him  for  the  great  work  for 


1'  One  need  but  turn  to  the  transcription  alphabet  in  any  Egyptian  Grammar 
to  convince  himself  that  the  Hebrew  letters  with  a  few  exceptions'  were  expressed 
by   Egyptian  characters. 

i«  R.  S.  Poole  says:  "The  documents  of  the  scribes  of  that  age  not  only 
show  by  their  accurate  translation  of  Semitic  words  that  the  writers  had  a  mastery 
of  the  foreign  sounds  they  wrote;  but  more  than  this,  it  was  the  fashion  to  in- 
troduce Semitic   words   into  the  Egyptian   language". 


EARLY  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  1 75 

which  he  was  destined".  (J.  D.  Davis'  Die.  of  Bible,  493). 
Doubtless  some  of  the  traditions  related  by  Philo  and  Josephus 
are  not  literally  correct,  but  they  rest  on  a  basis  of  fact  and  his- 
torical verisimiHtude.^^ 

A  recent  English  writer,  Dr.  S.  Kinns  in  "Graven  in  the  Rock", 
furnishes  a  graphic  picture  of  what  he  conceives  to  have  been  the  early- 
education  of  Moses.  "The  youthful  Moses  would  doubtless  have  been 
shaved  in  the  same  way  [i.  c.  all  his  hair  shaved  off]  and  kept  scru- 
pulously clean  by  the  princesses's  attendants,  who  would  train  him 
in  all  refined  manners  then  prevalent  among  the  highest  circles  of  the 
Egyptians.  His  residence  would  be  chiefly  in  the  apartments  of  his 
royal  mother  by   adoption,   where   he  would   be   furnished   with  every 

luxury Like  other  children,  he  would  have  to  learn  to  read  and 

write;  and  I  think  that  he  would  have  been  taught  both  the  hiero- 
glyphic and  hieratic  writing,  particularly  the  latter,  which  was  a  cursive 
hand  used  for  correspondence  and  business  purposes.  As  a  prince, 
doubtless,  it  would  have  been  necessary  for  him  to  master  the  hiero- 
glyphic writing,  in  order  that  he  might  read  the  inscriptions  on  the 
monuments  and  tombs.  .  .  .  After  being  trained  by  his  private  tutors, 
he  would  be  sent  to  one  of  the  two  great  Universities  which  were  at 
On  and  at  Hermopolis.  Tradition  says  that  Heliopolis  was  chosen ; 
it  was  nearer  to  Memphis  than  Hermopolis  and  would  have  a  special 
attraction  for  any  Hebrew  youth,  as  Joseph's  wife  was  a  daughter  of 

the  priest  of  On At  this  University  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 

Moses  completed  his  education  as  a  lay  student,  for  we  cannot  con- 
ceive of  his  becoming  a  priest"   (op.  cit.,  pp.,  308,  310,  314-5)- 

4.  Was  the  Lam  Originally  Written  in  the  Egyptian  Hieratic? 

But  we  desire  to  know  more  especially  whether  in  receiv- 
ing the  laws,  Moses  actually  engraved  them  on  stone  in  the 
complicated  Egyptian  script.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
usual  writing  material  in  Egypt  was  papyrus  and  the  brush, 
rather  than  stone  and  the  stylus.  And  yet  a  large  number  of 
lapidarian  records  of  all  kinds  has  come  down  to  us,  some  of 
them  of  a  character  similar  to  what  the  situation  in  the  time  of 
Moses  allowed.  In  fact  some  of  the  inscriptions  were  cut  in 
limestone  or  rather  scratched  thereon  with  little  labor.  One 
need  but  examine  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum, or  the  Louvre,  or  in  the  large  universities  in  this  country 
to  be  convinced  that  the  Egyptian  scribes  attained  wonderful 
skill  in  cutting  pictures  of  birds,  animals  and  natural  objects. 


"  Some  of  these  traditions  merit  reproduction  here.  It  is  affirmed  that  he 
was  educated  at  Heliopolis  (StraDo  17:  i)  and  grew  up  there  as  a  priest  with  the 
Egyptian  name  Osarsiph  (Manetho,  apud  Jos.  c.  A  p.  I:  26,  28,  31).  He  was 
instructed  in  the  whole  range  of  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  literature.  From  the 
Egyptians  he  learned  Mathematics,  in  order  to  test  truth  accurately  (Philo,  Vtta 
Af.  I.  5).  He  imparted  a  knowledge  of  grammar  to  the  Hebrews,  whence  it 
spread  to  Phcenicia  and  Greece  *,£upol.  apud  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  I).  He  headed 
a  successful  expedition  against  the  Ethiopians  and  founded  the  city  of  Hermopolis 
(Jos.  Ant.  II:    10). 


176  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW  LITEIL\TURE. 

Indeed  the  task  of  merely  cutting  the  characters  was  not  dif- 
ficult unless  the  stone  happened  to  be  unusually  hard  and  flinty. 
Not  a  few  of  the  inscriptions  are  on  limestone,  a  comparatively 
tractable  material.  Moses  must  have  possessed  the  skill  of  at 
least  the  average  Egyptian  schoolboy  or  workman,  who 
scratched  hieroglyphics  everywhere. 

In  the  account  of  the  giving  of  the  law  it  is  said :  ''And 
the  tables  were  the  work  of  God  and  the  writing  was  the  writ- 
ing of  God  graven  upon  the  tables"  (Ex.  32:  16).  The 
ascription  of  the  writing  to  God  is  an  anthropomorphism  which 
need  occasion  no  difficulty  here.  God  is  represented  as  doing 
what  his  agent  Moses  does.  The  words,  "graven  upon  the 
tables",  if  interpreted  strictly,  would  mean  that  they  were  cut 
in  the  stone.  The  Hebrew  word  haruth  (found  only  here  in 
the  O.  T.),  rendered  "graven",  but  practically  the  same  as 
harash,  means  to  cut  on  wood,  stone  or  stucco.  The  situation 
would  seem  to  demand  that  Moses  had  with  him  or  prepared 
on  the  moment  stone  tablets  into  which  the  letters  were  cut. 
It  is  known  that  scribes  went  about  supplied  with  writing  ma- 
terial suitable  for  any  emergency. 

Another  explanation  has  been  suggested.  In  Deut.  2y : 
2,  3,  we  read :  "Thou  shalt  set  thee  up  great  stones,  and  plaster 
them  with  plaster:  and  thou  shalt  write  upon  them  all  the 
words  of  this  law,  when  thou  are  passed  over".  On  this.  Driv- 
er says :  "That  is,  coat  them  with  lime  or  gypsum,  in  order  to 
secure  a  surface  on  which  the  writing  inscribed  might  be  clearly 
legible.  The  letters  were  not  to  be  carved  in  the  stone  (as  is 
usually  the  case  in  ancient  inscriptions),  but  to  be  inscribed, 
with  some  suitable  pigment,  upon  a  prepared  surface.  The 
practice  was  Egyptian".^^  It  is  possible  that  Moses  had  small 
stone  tablets  which  he  covered  with  plaster,  on  which  the  deca- 
log  was  inscribed.  Since  this  was  a  common  Egyptian  practice, 
with  which  Moses  was  acquainted,  the  writing  of  the  law  was 
not  the  extremely  difficult  task  which  it  is  sometimes  represent- 
ed to  have  been. 

(i).  Size  and  Weight  of  the  Original  Tables  of  the  Law.  Reuss 
urges  an  objection  requiring  consideration  here.  He  claims  that  the 
tables    oi  the   Law,    if  containing  originally   the    full    text    of   Ex.   20, 


^*  Deut.,  p.,  296.  Driver  adds:  "In  Egypt  it  was  the  custom  to  put  a  layer 
of  stucco,  or  paint,  over  the  stone  used  in  architecture,  of  whatever  quality,  even 
granite:  and  in  the  case  of  sandstone,  which  was  porous,  a  coat  of  calcareous  com- 
position was  laid  on  before  the  paint  was  applied.  The  black  pigment,  used  in 
Egypt,  consisted  of  ivory  or  black  bone;  and  figures,  or  characters  inscribed  by 
this  method   were  very  permanent". 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  1 77 

would  be  too   heavy  to  be  carried  by  an  octogenarian.     He  assumes 
that  the  620  letters  of  the  Hebrew  text  would  occupy  at  least  a  square        7 
metre ^^and  a  half  of  surface,  counting  25  square  centimeters  for  each  •^ 

letter.^**    Accordingly  the  decalog   occupied  more  than    16   square    feet  I 

of  surface,  and  each  table  must  have  been  four  feet  long  and  two  wide. 
Stone  tables  of  such  weight  and  size  would  probably  be  too  heavy  to 
be  carried  down  a  mountain  side  by  one  man. 

Concerning  this  hypothesis  the  following  may  be  noted.  Reuss 
supposes  that  25  square  centimeters  or  eight  square  inches  and  a  frac- 
tion were  necessary  for  each  letter.  This  would  mean  that  each  letter 
^yas  two  and  a  half  inches  square  —  surely  an  extravagant  assump- 
tion. One  need  but  examine  the  ordinary  Papyri,  or  the  longer 
Egyptian  documents,  or  better  still,  the  so-called  Israel  Stele  of 
Menerptah,  to  convince  himself  that  the  Egyptian  characters  are  often 
very  small,  and  that  the  space  required  for  the  Ten  Words  even  in  the 
Egyptian  script  is  upon  the  whole  within  very  moderate  limits.  From 
a  comparison  of  representative  inscriptions  in  Egyptian  hieratic,  cunei- 
form and  Phoenician  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  one  square  inch  for 
each  letter  is  amply  sufficient  under  the  circumstances.  Accordingly 
the  whole  of  the  decalog  would  require  620  square  inches,  or  a  surface 
about  25  inches  square.  Two  tablets,  then,  each  two  feet  and  one  inch 
long  and  a  fraction  over  a  foot  wide,  would  contain  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments. But  Reuss  ignores  the  fact  that  "the  tables  were  written 
on  both  sides ;  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other  were  they  written" 
(Ex.  32:  15).  We  may  accordingly  reduce  the  tablets  by  one-half,, 
that  is,  each  tablet  would  be  a  trifle  over  a  foot  in  length  and  width,, 
not  much  larger  in  fact,  though  somewhat  heavier  than  a  school-boy's, 
slate.    Tables  of  this  size  could  easily  be  carried  by  Moses/" 

(2)  No  Evidence  of  the  Use  of  the  Hieratic.  If  therefore 
the  issue  hinged  on  the  mere  possibility  of  the  use  of  the  Egyp- 
tian script  by  Moses,  no  serious  objection  could  be  urged.  Un- 
fortunately, we  have  nowhere  any  indication  that  the  Egyptian 
script  (whether  hieroglyphic  or  hieratic)  was  at  any  time,  either 
in  the  Mosaic  or  any  later  age,  employed  by  the  Hebrews  in 
their  sacred  books.  It  probably  was  used  occasionally  in  the 
pre-Mosaic  period  in  the  transcription  of  proper  names,  but  not 
in  the  writing  of  Hebrew  narratives.  But  in  the  event  of  its 
use,  as  Reuss  well  says,  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  the 
Hebrews  exchanged  it  for  the  Phoenician  script.  Of  this  we 
we  have  no  proof  whatever. 


"  "Ce  texte  se  compose  de  620  lettres.  Avec  I'ecriture  carree  actuelle,  ce 
texte,  en  ne  tenant  aucan  compte  des  marges  et  des  intarlifjnes  (la  separation  des 
mots  n'etant  pas  d'usage)  aurait  demande  au  moins  un  metre  carre  et  demi  de 
superficies,  meme  en  ne  calculant  pour  chaque  lettre  que  I'espace  minima  de  25 
cm.   carres"  (L'Histoire  Sainte,   int.,   p.,  66). 

2°  Substantially  the  same  calculation  would  hold  in  case  the  decalog  were 
written  in  cuneiform,  or  in  Hebrew. 

12 


178  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

D.   THE   HEBREWS   AND  THE  BABYLONIAN   LANGUAGE  AND   SCRIPT. 

Since  the  discovery  of  the  Amarna  Letters  the  opinion  has 
gradually  gained  ground  that  Moses  and  the  early  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  employed  the  Babylonian  language  and  script  for 
literary  purposes.  The  cuneiform  script  was  current  in  Pal- 
estine from  the  middle  of  the  third  millennium  down  to  and  in- 
cluding the  Amarna  period  (1400  B.  C).  How  much  later 
is  a  matter  of  dispute.  It  is  probable  that  it  continued  in  use 
several  centuries  longer.  The  recent  discovery  of  the  Gezer 
and  other  cuneiform  inscriptions  would  indicate  that  here  and 
there  the  Babylonian  language  was  employed  after  the  occupa- 
tion by  the  Israelites.  As  one's  position  on  this  subject  will 
determine  in  some  measure  his  attitude  on  the  antiquity  of  He- 
brew literature  in  general  and  the  character  of  Mosaic  litera- 
ture in  particular,  we  inquire  into  the  facts. 

I.  The  Library  Chest  of   Tell  Taan<ich. 

The  cuneiform  tablets  recently  discovered  at  Tell  Taannek, 
the  Biblical  Taanach,  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  prove,  it  is  alleged, 
that  the  Babylonian  language  and  script  were  employed  quite 
generally  in  Canaan  some  time  after  the  Amarna  period.  Ernst 
Sellin,  a  German  archaeologist,  unearthed  in  1902 — 4  the  ancient 
city,  which  flourished  from  2000  to  600  B.  C.  In  one  of  the 
structures,  identified  through  the  peculiar  stone  architecture, 
as  old  Canaanite,  Sellin  found  a  library  chest  of  the  Prince  of 
Taanach,  which  contained  several  clay  tablets  recording  the 
names  of  persons.  Near-by,  two  letters  and  other  inscriptions 
on  clay  tablets  were  discovered. ^^  The  writing  is  in  the  Baby- 
lonian language  and  script.  Sellin  conjectures  that  originally 
the  library  contained  other  valuable  writings  which  by  some 
mischance  were  lost. 

From  internal  evidence,  Sellin  assigns  the  tablets  to  a  per- 
iod some  50  years  after  the  Amarna  Letters.  It  is  of  the  great- 
est significance,  he  remarks,  that  the  correspondence  between 
the  native  princes  was  in  the  Babylonian  language,  for  hereafter 
no  one  can  affirm  that  the  cuneiform  was  employed  only  in  for- 
eign correspondence,  and  not  among  the  people.  Though  the 
large  tablets  are  greatly  mutilated,  it  is  certain  that  they  con- 
tain lists  of  names  sent  to  the  ruler  of  Taanach.  In  a  later 
monograph,  Sellin  returns  to  the  language  and  script  of  the 
tablets,  declaring  that  the  paramount  value  of  the  discovery  lies 

21  See  Tell  Taannek,  von  E.  Sellin,  Wien,   1904.     Also  Eine  Nachlese  auf  dem 
Tell  Taannek  in  Palaestina. 


EARLY  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  1 79 

in  the  fact  that  we  now  see  how  extensively  in  that  age  writing 
was  carried  on  in  the  cuneiform  script,  even  in  a  country  dis- 
trict of  Palestine.22 

These  tablets  render  it  clear  that  Babylonian  was  employed 
in  a  Canaanite  town  in  1350;  but  do  they  prove  that  the  men 
of  Taanach  did  not  speak  the  Canaanite  language  or  write  in 
the  Phoenician  script?  Not  at  all.  The  fact  that  many  Ger- 
man books  and  periodicals  are  published  in  this  country  is  no 
proof  that  English  is  not  the  language  of  the  United  States. 
We  must  suppose  that  the  Canaanite  language  of  this  date  (as 
also  the  Hebrew,  if  the  Exodus  had  already  taken  place),  the 
language  of  the  mass  of  the  people,  was  sufficiently  distinct 
from  the  Babylonian  to  be  regarded  as  a  separate  language  with 
its  own  script.  Nothing  in  the  above  tablets  indicates  that  when 
the  people  of  Taanach  or  any  other  Palestinian  town  wrote  they 
employed  the  cuneiform  script. 

2.  The  Gezer  Cuneiform  Tablets. 

The  Panbabylonists  claim  to  have  received  strong  support 
from  some  recently  discovered  cuneiform  tablets  in  Palestine. 
Of  these,  the  most  important,  perhaps,  are  the  Gezer  tablets 
found  by  Macalister.  They  are  deeds  of  the  sale  of  land,  which 
are  supposed  to  have  been  prepared  for  ancient  dwellers  of  the 
place.  *'The  dates  of  these  documents  are  651  and  649  and  they 
prove  that  under  Ashurbanipal,  fields  at  Gezer,  one  of  which 
belonged  to  a  man  with  a  Jewish  name  Nathaniah,  were  sold, 
and  the  sales  were  registered,  according  to  Assyrian  formulas 
in  the  Assyrian  language  and  in  the  one  case  by  a  notary  with 
so  unmistakable  an  Assyrian  name  as  Nirgal-Sharzzur"  (G. 
A.  Smith).  This  discovery  shows  that  the  Assyrian  language 
was  used  in  a  town  20  miles  from  Jerusalem  as  late  as  the  mid- 
dle of  the  seventh  century  B.  C.  {i.  e.  on  the  assumption,  denied 
by  some,  that  the  tablets  were  produced  in  Gezer,  and  not  car- 
ried thither  from  some  other  place).  But  it  does  not  show  that 
the  cuneiform  was  then  or  at  any  time  ordinarily  employed  by 
the  people  of  Gezer. 

We  may  account  in  several  ways  for  the  use  of  the  Assyri- 
an language  in  these  tablets.  Although  Gezer  was  a  Levitical 
city,  it  did  not  come  permanently  into  the  possession  of  the 


2'  "I  am  aware  that  skeptics  will  regard  the  7  foreign  and  5  native  letters  as 
isolated  incidents,  and  the  correspondence  as  an  exceptional  peculiarity  of  the 
Prince.  But  these  tablets  together  with  those  of  \marna  and  Lachish  prove  that 
the  Babylonian  script  was  employed  by  the  Canaanite  princes  in  1350;  and  in  fact 
no  other  was  known  to  them"  (Eine  Nachlese  auf  dem   Tell  Taannek  in  Palaes.J. 


l8o  ANTIQUITY   OF    HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

Israelites  until  the  time  of  Solomon  (Josh.  21  :  21 ;  i  K.  9  :  16). 
Afterward  during  the  Assyrian  domination,  it  became  a  seat 
of  Assyrian  influence  and  of  the  Ashtoreth  (Astarte)  religion. 
In  fact  Macalister  was  so  fortunate  as  to  find  the  foundation  of 
the  temple  of  Astarte  in  Gezer.  "Gezer  down  to  the  Babylon- 
ian Exile  was  a  center  of  the  Baal-Ashtoreth  cult".^^  All  this 
implies  an  influential,  if  not  a  large  Assyrian  population ;  thero 
need  be  no  surprise,  therefore,  at  the  use  of  the  Assyrian  lan- 
guage under  the  circumstances;  but  it  must  have  been  excep- 
tional in  Palestine. 

The  political  and  religious  situation  in  Judah  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury throws  light  on  the  subject.  The  early  years  of  the  long  reign 
of  Manasseh  (697-641)  witnessed  the  introduction  of  Assyrian  cus- 
toms. The  armies  of  Esarhaddon  and  Ashurbanipal  overran  all  Pales- 
tine. Ahaz  had  imported  Assyrian  models  in  the  furnishings  of  the 
Temple,  and  Manasseh  "reared  up  altars  for  Baal,  and  made  an 
Asherah,  as  did  Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  and  worshipped  all  the  host  of 
heaven,  and  served  them"  (2  K.  21:  3).  Assyria  being  dominant, 
it  is  natural  that  here  and  there  Assyrian  soldiers  should  remain  in 
Palestine  and  retain  for  a  while  their  mother  tongue.  It  is  even  pos- 
sible that  not  a  few  may  have  settled  there,  or  that  an  Assyrian  gar- 
rison was  quartered  there,  as  suggested  by  Gray.^*  , 

Benzinger,  however,  holds  that  the  custom  of  writing  such  com- 
pacts in  the  Assyrian  language  in  Palestine  dates  from  an  early 
period  and  that  the  hypothesis  of  an  Assyrian  garrison  does  not  meet 
the  conditions  of  the  case.  The  dominance  of  the  Assyrians  in  Pales- 
tine and  the  tendency  to  ape  foreign  customs  would  encourage  the  use 
of  the  Assyrian  in  a  deed  of  sale  to  which  one  of  the  parties  was  an 
Assyrian.  So  much  certainly  must  be  granted;  but  this  is  far  from 
proving  the  proposition  that  the  Assyrian  language  was  employed 
at  this  time  by  the  Israelites  in  general.  In  fact  the  Gezer  Calendar 
inscription  and  the  Samaria  ostraca  written  in  archaic  Hebrew  letters 
are  incontrovertible  proof  that  the  Hebrews  two  centuries  before  the 
period  in  question  employed  in  public  as  well  as  private  affairs  the 
Hebrew  language  and  script. 

3.  Babylonian  Language  in   Use  in  Israel. 

We  must  again  remind  the  reader  that  the  problem  before 
us  is  the  determination  of  the  original  form  of  the  early  Hebrew 
writings  and  of  the  m.ode  of  preserving  ancient  Hebrew  records 
—  surely  a  vital  question  for  all  Old  Testament  students.  In 
this  section  we  inquire  to  what  extent,  if  at  all,  the  Hebrews 
were  acquainted  with  and  employed  the  Babylonian  language 
and  script  in  addition  to  their  native  language. 

"  G.  A.  Barton,  Bib.  World,  XXIV,  p.,  167 — 9,  See,  further,  Macalister, 
Pal.  Ex.  F.   Quar.  St.,  Oct.,    1902. 

"  "What  more  probable  than  that  an  Assyrian  garrison  was  resident  there 
and  that  Assyrian  parties  to  the  deed  of  sale  employed  an  Assyrian  notary?  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  some  of  the  signatures  bear  pure  Assyrian  names,  certain  also  that 
one  bears  a  Jewish  name"    (G.   B.   Gray,  Expositor,  May,    1909). 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  l8l 

(i).  Babylonian  Language  during  the  Exile.  Did  the 
Hebrews  during  the  Exile  learn  the  Babylonian  language  and 
script  ?  Yes !"  say  some  recent  writers.  No  I^®  say  others. 
Col.  Condc^r  writes :  "It  is  evident  that  during  the  Captivity  the 
Jews  must  have  been  familiar  with  the  use  of  brick  tablets, 
and  of  the  cuneiform  script ;  for  these  were  the  official  methods 
of  the  Babylonians,  and  were  used  also  in  trading  transactions 
of  the  age'"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  20).  To  what  extent  the  Jews  of  the 
Exile  mingled  with  Babylonians  and  studied  Babylonian  litera- 
ture is  not  known  definitely;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  more 
enterprising  spirits  came  under  the  influence  of  Babylonian 
thought.  At  the  same  time,  the  Jews  formed  practically  a 
community  by  themselves.  "The  first  thing  that  strikes  us  is 
the  fact  that  in  some  way  from  the  very  beginning  the  solidarity 
of  the  survivors  of  Israel  was  maintained.  There  was  no  oblit- 
eration of  any  large  number  at  any  time On  the  whole 

the  Hebrew  society  held  well  together  in  exile.  The  fidelity 
with  which  the  family  records  and  genealogies  were  kept  was 
both  cause  and  effect  of  this  social  survival"  (McCurdy,  Hist. 
PropJi.  Mon.,  Ill,  351,  353). 

The  Exile  was  for  the  Hebrews  a  period  of  no  little  liter- 
ary activity,  both  in  arranging  and  editing  the  ancient  scrip- 
tures and  in  producing  new  works. ^^  It  is  natural,  too,  that 
they  would  be  influenced  by  the  literary  methods  of  their  neigh- 
bors. It  is  probable  that  the  Hebrew  scribes,  priests  and 
prophets  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  Babylonian,  but  we  have 
no  trace  in  the  exilic  or  post-exilic  books  that  the  Hebrews,  even 
if  conversant  with  Babylonian  literature,  used  this  language  in 
any  of  their  writings."^  We  know  that  they  gradually  came 
to  use  the  Aramaic,  for  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  written 
in  that  dialect.  Until  more  definite  proof  is  forthcoming,  the 
view  of  Conder  that  the  Jews  as  a  community  were  familiar 
with  the  cuneiform  must  be  pronounced  premature.^^ 


25  The   First  Bible.     Col.    C.    R.    Conder.    Blackwoods,   London. 

-^   Strack,    Koenig,    Kittel. 

"  "A   special  incentive   was   the  habit  of  writing,  almost   universal   among  the 
people    of    the   land,    and    necessarily    made    general    among   the    Hebrews    as    they 
came  to  be  engaged  in  varied  business.     Add  to  this  the  effect  upon  a  gifted  people 
of    a    literary    atmosphere    and    of    a    great    literature    of    immemorial    antiquity 
(McCurdy,    op.    cit.,   p.,    382). 

-*  Lack  of  space  forbids  a  discussion  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  dictum  that  not 
a  little  of  the  Priest  Code  (as  e.  g.  the  account  of  the  creation,  the  flood,  etc.,) 
was  derived  from  Babylonian  sources  during  the  Exile.  It  must  suffice  to  remark 
that  the  thesis  has  never  been  proved. 

20  In  fact  even  in  Babylonia  during  the  Exile  the  language  of  the  people  was 
largely  Aramaic.     "The  tongue  of  the  common  people  seems  to  have  been  Aramaic, 


l82  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

(2).  Babylonian  Language  among  the  Hebrews  in  Assy- 
rian Period.  The  advocates  of  the  Panbabylonist  hypothesis 
derive  alleged  support  from  the  state  of  religion  and  society 
in  Judah  in  the  so-called  later  Assyrian  period  (735-609).  Ac- 
cording to  Benzinger :  **Two  things  are  clear :  the  script  of 
Canaan  in  the  Amarna  period  was  the  cuneiform ;  the  Israel- 
ites brought  with  them  no  other  script  of  their  own  from  the 
desert  into  the  land  of  culture,  but  adopted  the  one  current 
there.  This  does  not,  however,  exclude  the  claim  that  the  al- 
phabetic script  was  known  at  an  earlier  period  in  Canaan. 
There,  too,  it  was  originally  the  vulgar  script  in  contrast  with 
the  official  cuneiform  script  employed  for  all  official  documents, 

compacts,  etc In  the  period  of  dependence  on  Assyria 

(since  Jehu,  842)  the  cuneiform  writing  again  came  into  use; 
when  Jehu  paid  tribute  to  Assyria,  the  two  courts  must  have 
had  regular  communication,  and  this  was  naturally  in  the  cune- 
iform script"  (Heb.  AchaeoL,  2te  Aitf.,  S.,  176). 

Referring  to  the  Gezer  cuneiform  tablets,  Benzinger  con- 
tinues :  'This  shows  that  the  custom  of  preparing  such  deeds 
descends  from  the  remote  past,  as  also  that  the  cuneiform  script 
was  employed  for  this  purpose.  But  the  cuneiform  script  was 
also  the  script  of  law  and  tribunals,  and  not  merely  of  inter- 
national communication.  Just  as  kings  and  princelings  in  the 
Amarna  age  had  secretaries  who  could  conduct  correspon- 
dence in  this  foreign  language  and  script,  so  there  were  at  trib- 
unals (in  Israel)  similar  learned  scribes  conversant  with  the 
script  and  language.  But  the  writing  at  tribunals  is  the  sacred 
writing,  for  justice  is  a  part  of  religion,  in  Israel  as  elsewhere. 
It  is  in  fact  the  writing  of  God  (Ex.  31  :  18;    32:  16).     It  is 

therefore  the  writing  of  the  learned In  Israel  as  in 

Babylonia  the  alphabetic  script  was  in  early  times  the  vulgar 
script,  which  served  originally  the  purposes  of  business  life. 
It  was  at  the  same  time  the  national  script,  in  opposition  to  the 
cuneiform,  because  it  allowed  the  use  of  the  native  language. 
....  Josiah's  reform,  which  at  the  same  time  implied  a 
breaking  away  from  Assyria,  may  also  have  signalized  the  end 
of  the  cuneiform  script  and  the  recognition  of  the  national  al- 


which  eventually  crowded  out  the  Babylonian  with  its  most  difficult  cuneiform 
script.  The  intercommercial  use  of  the  language,  the  fact  that  many  Western 
Semites  had  emigrated  to  this  region,  and  that  for  writing  purposes  the  Aramaic 
with  its  short  alphabet  was  infinitely  easier  to  learn  than  the  difficult  cuneiform 
script  with  its  five  hundred  characters,  give  us  reasons  for  the  theory  that  the 
Aramaic  gradually  supplanted  the  Babylonian  as  the  spoken  language  of  the  land" 
(Clay,  Light  on  O.  T.,  p.,  397). 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  1 83 

phabet.  That  Jeremiah  wrote  the  purchase  deed  of  his  land 
in  cuneiform  is  scarcely  probable,  Jer.  32:  10"  (op.  cit.,  177).^^ 

The  points  of  special  interest  in  Benzinger's  position  are 
that  among  the  Hebrews  the  Phoenician  script  was  at  first  and 
indeed  for  an  indefinite  period  regarded  as  a  "vulgar"  or  "de- 
motic", and  the  cuneiform  as  the  "official"  or  "sacred"  script ; 
and  that  only  at  a  late  period  (just  before  the  Exile)  was  the 
Babylonian  language  and  script  supplanted  by  the  Hebrew. 
We  review  these  allegations  in  detail. 

a.  Had  the  Hebrezvs  ever  a  Hieratic  Script?  The  hypo- 
thesis of  a  variety  of  scripts  in  Israel  is  not  in  itself  impossible 
or  without  precedent.  The  Egyptians  had  a  sacred  or  hieratic 
script,  employed  by  the  priestly  class,  and  a  demotic,  or  vulgar 
script  in  use  among  the  people.  Other  instances  might  be  cited, 
but  the  custom  is  exceptional.  That  the  Hebrews  ever  made 
such  a  distinction  is  improbable,  and  must  be  established  by 
evidence.     Is  there  such  ?^^ 

A  passage  in  Isaiah,  always  variously  interpreted,  is  now 
cited  in  support  of  the  new  view.  In  8 :  i  we  read :  "Take 
thee  a  great  tablet  and  write  with  the  pen  of  a  man,  etc."  The 
Revised  Version,  margin,  has  "in  common  characters".  What 
is  the  meaning  of  this?  Evidently  the  "great  tablet"  is  a  tablet 
of  wood,  stone,  clay  or  metal  sufficiently  large  to  contain  an 
inscription  to  be  set  up  in  a  public  place  and  easily  read  by  the 
people.  The  writing  "with  the  pen  of  a  man"  was  understood 
by  all  the  older  authorities  as  denoting  large  and  plainly  written 
letters  in  the  archaic  Hebrew  script.  Thus  Skinner  says :  "Easily 
legible  and  understood  by  the  people.  Such  a  direction  bears 
witness  to  an  extensive  knowledge  of  writing  in  Isaiah's  time" 
(Camh.  Bib.,  65).  According  to  Dillmann  it  is  "a  script  cut 
with  a  stylus,  i.  e.  characters  which  the  common  man  (Deut.  3 : 
II ;  2  S.  7:  14;  Hos.  6:  7)  can  read;  probably  not  in  contrast 
with  a  smaller  cursive  script  of  the  learned,  or  even  in  the  ar- 
chaic Hebrew  script  compared  with  the  Aramaic,  but  simply  in 
a  plain  script  easily  read  by  the  people"  (Kom.,  p.,  y6).  The 
natural  meaning  is  that  the  prophet  shall  write  the  message  in 
clear  and  bold  characters. 


30  Why  not  go  the  whole  length  of  the  hypothesis,  as  Winckler  does,  and  hold 
that  he  did?  What  Benzinger  says  as  to  the  scope  of  Josiah's  reform  is  also 
without  the  shadow  of  proof. 

31  The    alleged    Hebrew    custom    is    really    not    parallel   to    the    Egyptian,    for 
while  in  the  latter  case  various  scripts  were  employed  to  write  the  same  language, 
in  the  former  it  is  the  Babylonian  language  and  script  which  is  said  to  be     sacred 
and  the  Heb.  lang.  and  script  "the  vulgar"  or  "demotic". 


184  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

In  Opposition  to  this  we  are  told :  ''The  prophet  Isaiah  is 
expiessly  commanded  to  write  in  the  'script  of  a  man',  that  is 
in  the  vulgar  [Phoenician]  script"  (Benzinger).  The  same  opin- 
ion is  expressed  by  Jeremias,  who  suggests  that  if  the  phrase 
"the  pen  of  a  man"  designate  the  archaic  Hebrew  script  in  con- 
trast with  the  cuneiform,  the  latter  in  Isaiah's  time  would  be  re- 
garded as  a  sacred  or  hieratic  script.  In  that  event,  says  Jere- 
mias, the  words,  "graven  upon  the  tables  (Ex.  32:  16)",  would 
be  a  circumlocution  for  "cuneiform  script". ^^  Neither  Ben- 
zinger nor  Jeremias  offers  any  direct  proof  that  such  a  distinc- 
tion ever  obtained  in  Israel. 

If  we  understand  Benzinger  and  Jeremias  they  intend  to 
convey  the  impression  that  the  prophet,  if  not  otherwise  direct- 
ed, would  have  employed  the  Babylonian-Assyrian  language  in 
uttering  the  prophecy,  and  this  would  imply  that  his  prophecies 
were  written  in  that  language.  Is  this  probable?  Is  there  any- 
thing to  support  such  a  view  ?  Is  there  a  shadow  of  proof  that 
Isaiah  could  write  the  cuneiform?  In  any  event  prophecies 
written  in  a  foreign  tongue  and  script  would  have  been  sealed 
letters  to  the  people. 

b.  Further  Consideration  of  Babylonian-Assyrian  Lan- 
guage in  Israel.  Again,  we  are  told  :  "That  the  Aramaean  lan- 
guage was  known  to  the  upper  classes  in  Jerusalem  in  the  days 
of  Hezekiah  is  definitely  stated  in  the  Bible  (2  K.  18:  16;  Is. 
36 :  11)  and  it  appears  equally  clear  that  the  cuneiform  script 
was  also  understood  by  the  Jews  of  this  age  2  K.  19:  14;  Is. 
37:  14)"  (Conder,  op.  cit.,  p.,  22).  The  letter  (Heb.  hassepha- 
rim,  letters,  referred  to  in  the  two  immediately  preceding  pas- 
sages cited  by  Conder)  sent  by  Sennacharib  to  Hezekiah  was 
probably,  though  not  certainly,  written  in  the  Assyrian  language 
and  script.  In  that  event  it  would  be  translated  by  the  court 
scribes.  But  since  Aramaic  was  the  language  of  international 
communication  in  the  eighth  century,  the  letter  may  have  been 
in  that  language  and  script,  which  was  current  throughout  the 
East  and  of  course  well  understood  in  Jerusalem.  The  same  is 
true,  mutatis  nmtandis,  of  the  "letters"  sent  by  Merodach- 
Baladan  to  Hezekiah  (2  K.  20:  12).  These  passages  indicate 
that  in  all  probability  the  Assyrian  language  was  understood  at 
the  court  of  Hezekiah,  but  they  do  not  prove  that  the  people  in 
general  understood  it.     According  to  2  K.  18 :  26,  the  people 

^  A.  Jeremias,  Das  A.   T.  im  Lich.  d.  Orients,  424. 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  185 

did  not  understand  Aramaic;    and  it  is  less  likely  that  they 
understood  the  Assyrian. ^^ 

Benzinger's  statements  that  the  Assyrian  language  was  understood 
at  the  court  of  Jehu  and  that  the  Gezer  cuneiform  tablets  are  proof 
of  the  use  of  cuneiform  in  drawing  up  deeds  may  be  allowed;  but 
this  by  no  means  shows  that  the  "Keilschrift"  was  ever  officially  adopt- 
ed by  the  Hebrews  or  formed  any  appreciable  element  in  their  national 
life.  Benzinger  has  in  no  way  proved  that  the  writing  of  the  Hebrew 
court  was  in  cuneiform,  that  the  prophets  employed  it,  that  it  was 
"auch  in  Israel  die  Schrift  der  Religion  und  der  Verwaltung  his  auf 
Hiskia",  or  that  the  Hebrews  at  the  time  of  Isaiah  or  in  any  period  of 
their  history  distinguished  between  a  sacred  (cuneiform)  and  a  vulgar 
(Phoenician)  script.  He  merely  assumes  what  the  whole  Graf- 
Kuenen-Wellhausen  school  has  all  along  assumed,  that  the  Hebrews 
at  the  Exodus  were  too  ignorant  and  illiterate  to  have  acquired  the 
Phoenician  script,  or  he  adopts  with  the  same  negative  school  the 
exploded  hypothesis  that  the  Phoenician  script  was  not  invented  until 
about  1200  B.  C.  and  did  not  reach  the  Hebrews  at  the  earliest  until 
1000  B.  C,  and  then  only  through  the  Canaanites". 

c.  Winckler's  Hypothesis.  Benzinger  and  Jeremias  adopt 
substantially  the  hypothesis  announced  by  Hugo  Winckler  sev- 
eral years  ago,  that  the  cuneiform  was  employed  by  the  Hebrews 
until  about  the  time  of  the  Exile.  His  thesis  runs  thus :  The 
alphabet  was  employed  in  Canaan  as  a  'Vulgar"  script  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  cuneiform,  the  script  of  government  and  letters. 
The  ''demotic"  script  sustained  the  same  relation  to  the  cunei- 
form as  the  language  of  the  people  in  the  Middle  Ages  to  the 
Latin  of  the  learned  professions,  for  the  alphabet  was  employed 
from  the  first  in  the  popular  language,  that  is  Canaanite,  and 
then  Hebrew  and  Aramaic.  Assuming  that  cuneiform  writing 
was  employed  in  Israel  for  the  same  purpose  as  in  the  Euphra- 
tes valley,  Winckler  seeks  to  determine  when  it  was  supplanted 
by  the  Phoenician  or  "vulgar"  script.  Since  the  earliest  in- 
scriptions in  the  Phoenician  script  are  later  than  looo  B.  C, 
Winckler  holds  that  the  period  of  its  use  in  Israel  runs  parallel 
with  the  decline  of  Assyrian  influence.^* 

Winckler  allows  that  meanwhile  of  course  the  Phoenician 
script  was  used  in  the  "monumental  records"  of  the  kings,  but 
that  this  does  not  imply  its  use  as  the  medium  of  expression 
in  education  and  religion.  One  may  ask.  Why  not  ?  If  it  could 
be  employed  in  the  former  case,  why  not  in  the  latter?     The 

«3  "There  are  many  known  facts  concerning  the  use  of  Aramaic  in  Babylonia, 
Assyria,  and  Palestine,  which  in  the  centuries  before  and  after  the  Exile  are  sug- 
gestive of  a  very  general  usage  of  the  language.  We  can  infer  that  Aramaic  wa3 
the  language  of  diplomacy  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib  from  the  episode  in  2  K.  18: 
36"   (Clay,  Light  etc.,  p.,  396). 

^*  See  "Der  Gebrauch  der  Keilschrift  be*  den  Juden"  in  Altorientalische  Far- 
schungen,   III,    165—76.     Von  Hugo  Winckler. 


l86  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

Gezer  Calendar  tablet  and  the  Samaria  ostraca,  as  well  as  the 
Jeroboam  and  other  early  seals  clearly  refute  Winckler.  One 
can  indeed,  says  Winckler,  compose  government  orders  and 
historical  reports  in  a  cultureless  language,  but  not  real  litera- 
ture. But  surely  the  Hebrew  of  the  David-Hezekiah  period 
was  as  perfect  and  highly  cultivated  a  language  as  the  Assy- 
rian of  that  age ;  and  as  to  literary  quality  the  early  Old  Testa- 
ment books  are  at  least  on  a  par  with,  if  not  superior  to,  the  best 
Babylonian-Assyrian  literature. 

(a).  Winckler  on  Is.  8:  i;  8:  i6.  The  only  proof  that  Winckler 
considers  it  necessary  to  adduce  is  the  affirmHtion  that  Is.  8 :  i  implies 
a  distinction  between  a  "sacred"  and  a  "vulgar"  language  and  script 
and  that  Is.  8:  i6  refers  to  a  tablet  prepared  in  the  Assyrian  manner. 
Instead  of  the  usual  rendering,  "bind  up  the  testimony,  seal  the  tablet 
among  my  disciples"  (8:  i6)  Winckler  by  an  arbitrary  emendation 
of  the  Hebrew  translates:  "description  (of  the  compact),  witnesses, 
seal,  legal  conditions  and  scholar".  The  latter,  we  are  told,  is  the 
Assyrian  dupsar,  the  learned  scribe  who  drew  up  the  document  in 
cuneiform,  not  in  Hebrew.  The  conclusion  is  reached  that  the  Israel- 
ites made  use  of  tablets  and  writing  material  in  the  manner  of  the 
Assyrians,  a  proposition  which  might  have  been  sustained  without  a 
mutilation  of  the  Hebrew  text,  but  which  does  not  prove  what  Winck- 
ler asserts. 

(b).  Winckler  on  Jeremiah  32:  10.  Jeremiah  Z'^'-  lo:  "And  I 
subscribed  the  deed,  and  sealed  it,  and  called  witnesses  and  weighed 
him  the  money  in  the  balances",  is  adduced  by  Winckler  in  support  of 
his  view.  The  common  interpretation  of  this  transaction  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "Jeremiah  made  out  and  signed  in  the  presence  of  witnesses, 
whose  signatures  were  added,  two  copies  of  the  deed  of  purchase,  spe- 
cifying the  particulars  of  the  land,  and  the  conditions  under  which 
he  bought  it.  He  then  caused  one  of  the  deeds  to  be  sealed  up  and 
the  other  left  open,  the  former  to  be  referred  to,  in  case  at  any  time 
it  were  suspected  that  the  latter  had  been  tampered  with"  (Streane, 
Jeremiah,  210).  Winckler,  however,  holds  that  "we  have  to  do  with 
a  clay  tablet  which  like  the  archaic  Babylonian  tablets  consists  of  an 
inner  tablet  and  an  outer  covering,  both  of  which  contain  the  same 
text.  Of  these  the  outer  one  is  sealed.  This  is  called  here  the  open 
one".  W.  adds :  "The  sealing  implies  clay,  for  otherwise  something 
would  be  said  of  the  material  to  be  sealed".  It  is  not  clear  what 
Winckler  aims  to  establish  by  showing  that  the  "deed"  was  on  clay 
tablets;  the  traditional  view  does  not  hinge  on  the  contention  that 
parchment  or  papyrus  was  used  exclusively  by  the  Hebrews,  though 
the  narrative  in  Jer.  36:  2  f  implies  a  parchment  roll.  The  Hebrews 
used  also  stone  and  clay  for  writing.  Winckler  himself  says :  "Mani- 
festly it  does  not  follow  from  the  use  of  the  double  clay  tablet,  that  it 
was  written  in  the  cuneiform  script.  This  is  excluded  by  the  date 
under  consideration."  That  is,  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  both  the  He- 
brew language  and  the  Phoenician  script  were  employed  even  in  legal 
documents.  For  aught  to  the  contrary  they  might  also  have  been 
employed  by  Isaiah  a  century  earlier  and  even  in  the  time  of  David. 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  1 8/ 

Winckler  finally  suggests  two  dates  when  the  Phoenician  became 
the  official  script  of  the  Hebrews:  "We  have  between  Isaiah  and  Jere- 
miah two  occasions  when  the  new  style  may  have  been  introduced: 
first,  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah's  legislation,  which  was  based  presum- 
ably on  the  Book  of  the  Jehovist  (J)  ;  or,  second,  the  Book  of  Deut. 
in  the  time  of  Josiah.  The  former  seems  more  probable;  because 
Hezekiah's  reform  represents  the  first  positive  act  of  Judah  in  con- 
trast with  the  dependence  on  Assyria  under  Ahaz".  It  has  been 
shown  that  not  only  had  the  Hebrew  language  and  Phoenician  script 
been  employed  in  Israel  in  early  times  for  the  purposes  assigned  by 
Winckler  to  the  cuneiform,  but  also  that  they  had  become  the  lan- 
guage and  script  of  law,  literature,  education  and  religion  as  early  as 
the  time  of  Solomon,  and  probably  at  the  Exodus. 

(^).  No  Babylonian  Influence  in  Early  Regal  Period.  Even 
if  it  be  found  that  Assyrian  influence  in  Israel  in  the  time  of 
Jehu  and  Hezekiah  may  have  led  to  the  use  of  the  Assyrian 
language  in  diplomacy,  no  trace  of  such  tendency  exists  in 
the  pre-Assyrian  period  (1037-875).  The  Hebrews  were  left 
to  develope  their  own  national  life  and  consciousness  without 
any  perceptible  foreign  interference.  This  is  the  period  when 
they  cuhivated  in  a  special  sense  their  native  literature,  histori- 
cal, prophetical  and  poetical.  The  language  was  the  Hebrew, 
the  script  the  Phoenician.  This  is  shown  archaeologically  by 
the  Siloam  inscription  (700  B.  C),  the  Gezer  Calendar  tablet 
(800),  the  Samaria  ostraca  (850),  the  Jeroboam  seal  (920), 
and  indirectly  by  the  Moabite  Stone  (900)  and  the  Baal  Leba- 
non inscription  (1000). 

Ther'i  is  absolutely  no  trace  in  any  inscription  thus  far  un- 
earthed that  the  Hebrews  of  this  period  employed  the  cunei- 
form in  their  literature.  Even  Benzinger  and  Winckler  con- 
cede that  ''the  earliest  extant  monuments  in  the  alphabetic 
script,  the  royal  inscriptions  of  Mesha  and  of  Zinjirli",  prove 
a  temporary  decline  in  Assyrian  influence  in  the  period  sub- 
sequent to  1000.  But  Benzinger  holds  that  this  by  no  means 
proves  that  the  cuneiform  ''disappeared  from  religious  use  in 
the  temple  and  from  official  use  in  legal  documents".  What 
evidence  does  he  offer  that  the  Keilschrift  still  retamed  (if 
indeed  it  ever  acquired)  a  footing  in  Israel?  None  whatever.^^^ 
4.  Early  Old  Testament  Books  in  Cuneiform. 

The  possibilities  of  the  cuneiform  have  led  some  to  argue 
that  Moses  wrote  his  laws  in  the  cuneiform  script.     Lately  two 

35  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  scribes  and  men  of  letters  in  Israel  from  Abra- 
ham  to  Moses  Joshua,  David  and  Hezekiah,  understood  the  cuneiform;  but  the 
coSention  here  is  that  the  Old  Testament  was  a  native  product  written  originally 
in  the   Hebrew   language   and  script. 


l88  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

English  scholars,  Col.  C.  R.  Conder  and  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce  have 
defended  (independently,  it  seems)  the  view  that  at  least  the 
early  Old  Testament  books  were  composed  in  the  Babylonian- 
Assyrian  language  and  the  cuneiform  script.^^ 

(i).  Conder' s  Argument  from  Proper  Names.  Conder 
argues  that  the  forms  of  some  proper  names  "seem  to  suggest 
that  the  character  used  in  the  original  tablets  of  the  law,  and  in 
their  early  chronicles  on  clay  was  the  cuneiform  script  which 
prevailed  m  the  days  of  Moses"  (First  Bible,  95).  He  holds 
that  the  variant  orthography  of  Azariah  and  Uzziah,"  Michal 
and  Merob,  Bathsheba  and  Bathshua  and  a  dozen  other  proper 
names  is  due  to  scribal  mistakes  in  reading  the  value  of  the 
cuneiform  signs.  Conder's  view  that  the  "Osnapper"  of  Ezra 
4:  10  is  really  an  alternative  reading  of  the  cuneiform  signs  for 
Assurbanipal  is  probably  correct.^^ 

Having  examined  some  20  proper  names,  Conder  reaches 
the  conclusion  that  the  Hebrews  knew  at  least  two  scripts  from 
the  time  of  Solomon,  one  the  cuneiform,  "the  divine  writing", 
the  other,  the  Phoenician,  "the  writing  of  common  men".  "The 
discrepancies  in  personal  names,  and  in  other  words  not  of 
common  occurrence,  indicate  clearly  that  a  character  was  in 
use  which  was  not  alphabetic,  and  in  which  the  signs  had  more 

than  one  sound The  uncertainties  are  clearly  traced, 

on  the  assumption  that  this  character  was  the  Babylonian  cune- 
iform" (p.,  137,  op.  cit.). 

Conder's  examples  are  too  few  to  warrant  the  hazardous 
conclusions  drawn  by  him.     It  would  seem  that  foreign  pro- 

2«  In  the  Amarna  Letters  the  scribes  frequently  reproduce  Canaanite  (He- 
brew) words  in  cuneiform  characters.  Thus  after  shadi  (mountain)  stands  fre- 
quently the  Hebrew  charri  (mountain)  in  cuneiform.  So  after  chalgat  (perish) 
we  have  the  Heb.  abada  (perish);  after  epiru  (dust)  aparu;  after  elippu  (ship), 
Canaanite  gloss  anay ;  sisu  (horse),  Cannanite  susu,  etc.  See  a  full  list  in 
Schrader,  KAT,  3  ed.,  p.,  652.  Even  the  word  Canaan,  Heb.  Kanaan  appears 
in  a  quite  similar  form  Kinachi.  The  scribes  wishing  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to 
the  meaning  inserted  the  native  Canaanite  word.  These  glosses  prove  that  the 
language  of  Canaan  in  the  15th  cent.  B.  C.  was  essentially  the  same  as  that 
spoken  by  the  Phoenicians,  Moabites  and  Hebrews  several  centuries  later.  The 
large  number  of  Hebrew  words  •  in  the  Amarna  Letters  proves  that  already  in 
1400  Canaanite  or  Hebrew  had  substantially  the  same  stock  of  words  as  are  found 
in  the  Pentateuch. 

3^  This  king's  name  occurs  in  the  records  of  Tiglath-Pileser  III  as  'As-ri-ya-a- 
hu.  But  the  sign  ri  has  also  the  sounds  gs  and  sa,  so  that  the  reading  'Ae-sa- 
ya-a-hu,  or  Uzziah,  is  also  possible. 

^  The  name  Assurbanipal  does  not  occur  in  the  Bible,  but  Conder  reproduces 
cuneiform  signs  which  might  be  read  either  Assurbanipal  or  Asnappar.  Though 
the  letter  of  which  Ez.  4:  10  forms  a  part  was  written  in  the  Aramaic  language 
and  script,  Conder  writes:  "The  letter  itself  would  probably  be  in  cuneiform; 
for  the  Babylonian  type  of  this  script  was  commonly  employed  for  official  docu- 
ments by  the  Semitic  subjects  even  of  the  Persian  Artaxerxes  I.  Such  letters 
were  copied  in  many  known  cases,  and  a  copy  seems  to  have  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  the  Jews"  (op.  cit.,  p.,   iii). 


EARLY    OLD   TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  1 89 

per  names  were  often  either  differently  pronounced  or  imper- 
fectly understood  by  Biblical  writers,  and  so  confusion  would 
naturally  arise.  In  a  few  cases  the  discrepancy  may  be  due  to 
a  mistaken  reading  of  a  cuneiform  text :  but  neither  Benzinger 
nor  Conder  has  shown  that  any  Old  Testament  book  or  any 
part  thereof  was  composed  in  cuneiform. 

(2).  Hebrew  Text  Paraphrased  from  an  Assyrian  Origin- 
al. A  somewhat  similar  type  of  Panbabylonism  has  recently 
been  championed  by  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce,  who  comes  forward 
with  the  hypothesis  that  *'if  there  are  any  records  in  the  Old 
Testament  earlier  than  the  time  of  David  they  will  have  been 
written  on  clay  tablets  in  the  Assyrian  language  and  script. 
And  careful  investigation  of  the  text  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  brings  phenomena  to  light  which  can  be  explained 
only  on  the  supposition  that  the  Hebrew  text  has  been  translated 
or  paraphrased  from  an  Assyrian  original".^^  Examining 
the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  view  of  discovering 
hovv^  far  it  can  readily  be  turned  into  Assyrian,  he  claims  to 
have  found  a  number  of  words  which  imply  an  Assyrian  orig- 
inal. Thus  the  confusion  of  Ham  and  Ammi,  Zuzim  and  Zam- 
zumin,  in  Gen.  15:  5  and  Deut.  2:  20,  is  supposed  to  imply  a 
translation  from  the  Assyrian.  In  Gen.  11  :  29  the  phrase  *'the 
father  or  Iscah"  is  but  a  repetition  of  "the  father  of  Milcah" 
through  failure  to  note  that  the  same  cuneifonn  character  has 
the  phonetic  value  of  both  is  and  mil. 

Commenting  on  2  S.  8:  i  ("David  took  the  bridle  of  the 
mother  city  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Philistines"),  Sayce  writes: 
"Metheg-ammah  has  no  sense  in  Hebrew,  and  the  attempts 
made  to  explain  it  have  consequently  been  failures.  The  two 
words,  however,  are  simply  a  transliteration  of  two  Assyrian 
words  which  signify  'the  military  road  of  the  mainland'  of  Pal- 
estine". But  the  word,  literally  'the  bridle  of  the  mother  city', 
may  be  used  metaphorically  in  the  sense  of  authority,  jurisdic- 
tion, as  indicated  in  the  parallel  passage  i  C.  18:  i,  "David  took 
Gath  and  its  towns  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Philistines". ^°  The 
passage  is  not  decisive  for  the  new  view. 

We  are  told  that  zoMr,  Gen  6:  16  rendered  "window"  is 
"not  a  Hebrew  word  at  all  but  merely  a  transliteration  of  the 
Assyrian  zuhru,  a  ridged  roof".     But  since  it  occurs  as  a  Ca- 

«»  Homiletic  Review,   LX,  pp.,    100-104). 

*•  A  similar  expression,  'holding  the  bridle  of  countries',  is  found  in  Arabic 
writers.  See  Lane,  Arabic  Lexicon,  p.,  1249;  Shultens  on  Job  30:  11  and  Koeh- 
ler   Gesch.   II,   244. 


IQO  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

naanite  gloss  in  the  Amarna  Letters  (157,  11),  it  was  doubt- 
less used  also  in  Hebrew,  though  like  many  Hebrew  words 
ultimately  derived  from  a  Babylonian  root.  The  same  is  true 
of  ed,  mist,  Gen.  2 :  6. 

Something  can  be  said  in  favor  of  Sayce's  explanation  of 
the  crux  in  Gen.  4 :  22,  "a.  hammerer  of  every  artificer  in  bronze 
and  iron".  Says  Sayce :  'The  two  Hebrew  words  for  'ham- 
merer' and  'artificer'  are  alike  translations  of  the  same  Assyrian 
original ;  they  were  alternative  renderings  which  were  sub- 
sequently combined  in  the  same  text". 

Prof.  Sayce  has  worked  in  this  field  many  years  and  dis- 
covered some  strange  phenomena,  but,  as  he  himself  says,  "the 
work  is  far  from  finished,  and  it  is  too  early  to  announce  gen- 
eral results" ;  nevertheless,  from  less  than  a  score  of  passages 
presented  thus  far,  he  would  have  us  accept  the  sweeping  gen- 
eralization that  by  his  discovery  "the  foundations  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  and  its  theories  will  be  destroyed  together  with  the 
originality  of  the  Hebrew  text  upon  which  they  have  been 
built". 

Unfortunately,  the  same  line  of  argument  would  prove 
that  the  later  historical  books,  no  less  than  the  earlier,  must  have 
been  composed  in  the  Assyrian  and  afterward  translated  into 
Hebrew.  Kings,  and  Chronicles,  exhibit  even  in  greater  de- 
gree phenomena  similar  to  those  which  Sayce  finds  in  the  Hex- 
ateuch,  Judges  and  Samuel.  Thus  i  C.  18  (parallel  to  2  S.  8) 
has  a  number  of  alternative  forms  which  might  with  equal  plau- 
sibility be  traced  to  an  Assyrian  original.  A  comparison  of 
Beth-lebaoth,  Josh.  19:  6  and  Beth-biri,  i  C.  4:  31;  of  Gath- 
rim.mon,'^^  Josh.  21  :  25  and  Bileam,  i  C.  6:  70;  of  Jokneam,*^ 
Josh.  21 :  34  and  Rmmono,  i  C.  6:  77  (which  are  hardly  mere 
scribal  errors)  might  lead  one  to  infer  that  the  discrepancies 
are  due  to  a  misreading  of  an  assumed  Assyrian  original. 
Sayce's  argument  proves  too  much. 

Of  the  six  ways  of  spelling  the  name  of  a  Babylonian  king 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible  the  form  Nebuchadrezzur  (Jer.  49:  28), 
as  nearest  the  Babylonian  form,  is  probably  the  most  correct. 
It  might,  therefore,  be  argued  that  since  this  form  occurs  in 
Jeremiah,  the  prophecy  was  originally  written  in  cuneiform; 
but  nothing  could  be  more  absurd.     Such  isolated  examples 

*i  If  the   name   be   turned    into   cuneiform,   it   can   be    read    either   Bil-im,    or 
Gat-Rimmono. 

**  The  cuneiform  might  be   transliterated  either   as  Akanam   or  Rammuano. 


EARLY  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  I9I 

prove  merely,  that  now  one,  now  another  orthography  was 
preferred  by  the  Hebrew  writers.*^^ 

While  questioning  that  Sayce  has  proved  his  thesis,  we 
allow  that  he  and  others  have  brought  support  to  our  conten- 
tion, that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  first  and  last,  were  composed 
in  the  Hebrew  language  and  the  archaic  Phoenician  script,  but 
that  at  least  in  the  early  period,  less  so  in  the  later,  the  authors 
and  compilers  had  access  to  old  sources,  sometimes  in  Baby- 
lonian-Assyrian, but  usually  in  Hebrew.  We  agree  with 
Strack  :  "Proof  is  lacking  that  the  Israelites  after  the  Conquest 
made  use  of  the  cuneiform  writing  in  any  perceptible  degree. 
The  conjecture  put  forth  by  Englishmen  and  by  Winckler  that 
the  decalog  was  originally  written  in  the  cuneiform  script  is 
devoid  of  the  sUghtest  proof"  (Herzog,  RE  3rd  Ed.). 

Koenig  in  opposing  the  Winckler  hypothesis  shows  that 
the  Canaanite-Hebrew  language  was  indigenous  in  Canaan 
from  the  time  of  Abraham.  ''The  Abrahamites  brought  with 
them  their  own  native  language  which  was  closely  related  to  the 
Phoenician.  The  degree  of  relationship  of  the  Hebrew  with 
the  Phoenician  was  once  for  all  settled  by  Stade ;  and  the  same 
conclusion  is  reached  from  the  fact  that  in  the  intercourse  be- 
tween the  Hebrews  and  the  Canaanites  no  interpreter  is  im- 
plied" (See  art.  on  ''Die  Bah.  Schrift  u.  Sprache  u.  d.  Original- 
Gestalt  d.  Hebrae.  Schrifttnms" ,  in  "Zeits.  d.  Dent.  M.  Ge- 
sellsc,  1910,  pp.,  715-32).  In  opposition  to  Naville's  fancy 
that  Deborah's  Ode  was  composed  in  cuneiform,  Koenig  points 
out  that  the  style  and  language  are  similar  to  those  of  other  old 
Hebrew  writings.  See  Num.  21:  14;  18:  27-30;  Deut.  33; 
Josh.  10:  13.  "There  is  no  positive  ground  to  deny  to  the 
Mosaic  age  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  as  a  literary  language."*^ 
5.  Assyrian  and  Hebrew  Languages  Side  by  Side  in  Israel. 

What  must  be  our  conclusion  on  the  use  of  the  Babylonian- 
Assyrian  language  among  the  Hebrews  ?  Much  can  be  said  in 
support  of  the  view  that  the  scribes  and  court  officials  in  Is- 
rael understood  this  foreign  language  and  script.  The  Amama 
Tablets,  the  Taanach  letters,  the  Gezer  cuneiform  tablets  and 


"  The  king's  name  is  variously  written  in  the  monuments.  It  is  a  singular 
fact  that  in  one  of  the  shorter  forms  we  may  read  either  Nabu-cu-du-nazar  or 
Nabn-cu-dur-iuzar,  which  would  indicate  that  the  transliteration  was  not  always 
the  same. 

**  "Man  kann  in  Israel  auch  schon  in  sehr  alter  Zeit,  wie  z.  B.  jn  den 
Tagen  Moses,  eine  andere  als  die  Bab.  Schrift,  also  die  althebraeische  Schrift 
besessen   haben.     Diese   Moeglichkeit  muss  offen   gelassen   werden. 


192  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

various  Old  Testament  passages  warrant  such  an  inference. 
The  Hebrews  were  in  fact  throughout  the  greater  part  of  their 
history  a  bi-lingual,  and  even  tri-Hngual  people.  Abraham  spoke 
the  Babylonian  as  well  as  the  Hebrew- Aramaic  dialects;  Isaac 
and  Jacob  probably  understood  both  the  Babylonian  and  the 
Aramaic  in  addition  to  the  Hebrew;  (Jacob  certainly  under- 
stood the  Aramaic  spoken  by  Laban,  Gen.  31  :  47).  In  Egypt 
Israel  would  retain  the  Hebrew  and  acquire  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  also  the  Egyptian.  During  the  Hyksos  and  Amarna 
periods  we  may  be  sure  that  the  leading  spirits  of  the  tribes 
would  learn  the  Babylonian.  In  the  time  of  Hezekiah  Aramaic 
was  understood  by  the  nobility  of  Jerusalem ;  and  it  would  seem 
that  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  flourished  side  by  side  after  the 
Exile.  We  know  that  in  the  time  of  Christ,  Aramaic  and 
Greek  were  well  understood  by  the  people  of  Palestine.  Even 
today  one  meets  in  the  East  men  and  women  who  speak  a  half- 
dozen  languages;  and  a  similar  proficiency  may  have  been  at- 
tained by  the  half-dozen  affiliated  Semitic  peoples  in  the  an- 
cient Orient.  The  Hebrews  have  always  been  linguists,  and 
we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  were 
inferior  in  this  respect  to  the  modern.  We  see  nothing  im- 
probable, therefore  in  the  claim  that  the  Babylonian-Assyrian 
language  was  understood  by  Hebrew  scribes  and  scholars  from 
the  Exodus  [and  even  Abraham]  to  the  Exile. 

The  preceding  inquiry  establishes  four  propositions : 

1.  The  foreign  correspondence  of  Israel  (in  1400-600  B. 
C.)  was  probably  carried  on  in  the  Assyrian  language  and 
script. 

2.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  people  as  a  class  understood 
the  Assyrian  or  that  Hebrew  history,  legislation,  prophecy  or 
literature  m  general  was  written  in  this  foreign  and  to  the  peo- 
ple unintelligible  medium  of  expression. 

3.  The  hypothesis  that  the  early  Old  Testament  books 
were  composed  in  the  Assyrian  language  and  the  cuneiform 
script  is  without  substantial  support. 

4.  The  only  conclusion  validated  by  facts  is  that  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  early  and  late,  were  written  originally  in 
the  Hebrew  language  and  script,  except  a  few  chapters  in  Ezra 
and  Daniel   (in  Aramaic). 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  reconcile  the  antitheses  of  the 
antagonistic  schools  of  Old  Testament  criticism  mentioned  at 
the  outset  (chap.  I).  Of  the  half  dozen  fundamental  issues, 
only  three  demand  consideration  here :  the  mode  of  transmis- 
sion of  the  early  books  (whether  by  written  record,  or  oral 
tradition) ,  the  nature  of  Hebrew  civilization  in  the  Mosaic  and 
the  post-Mosaic  age,  and  the  extent  of  Hebrew  literature  in 
the  pre-Davidic  period.  The  answer  to  these  questions  will 
go  far  toward  settling  the  underlying  problems  of  Pentateuchal 
discussion. 

I. 

HEBREW    CIVILIZATION    IN   THE    PRE-DAVIDIC    PERIOD. 

A.   ARE    THE    GENESIS     NARRATIVES     SAGAS    AND    LEGENDS^    OR    AUTHENTIC 

HISTORY  ? 

Hermann  Gunkel  opens  his  elaborate  Introduction  to  Gen- 
esis with  the  statement:  ''Does  Genesis  relate  history,  or  saga? 
This  question  is  no  longer  a  question  for  the  modern  historian''. 
Gunkel  then  proceeds  to  justify  his  conclusion  that  Genesis 
contains  only  saga,  not  history.^ 

The  first  of  the  three  points  in  which  saga  and  history  dif- 
fer, according  to  Gunkel,  is  that  ''originally  the  saga^  exists  as 
oral  tradition,  history  in  written  form ;  the  saga  is  employed  by 
those  who  are  unable  to  write,  historical  composition  is  a  scien- 
tific process  implying  writing".  Originally,  however,  an  oral 
tradition  may  be  just  as  accurate  as  a  written  document;  the 
distinction  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  former  in  the  course  of  trans- 
mission is  liable  to  great  modification,  while  the  latter  is  relative- 


1  Genesis  Uebersetzt  u.  Erklaert,  von  H.  Gunkel.  The  fact  that  the  Grafians 
generally  and  especially  their  American  representatives  regard  G's.  Introduction  as 
a  better  Gospel  than  the  old,  is  our  apology  for  reviewing  it  here. 

2  The  dictionaries  define  saga  as  a  tradition  relating  either  mythical  or  histor- 
ical  events. 

13  193 


194  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

ly  permanent.^  In  general  of  course  an  ancient  document  has 
immense  value  over  oral  tradition,  though  exceptionally  a  gen- 
uine tradition  outweighs  a  written  statement.  The  question 
here  is  whether  the  Genesis  narratives  come  under  the  head  of 
authentic  history  (in  oral  or  written  form),  or  of  saga,  myth, 
legend. 

Gunkd  declares:  'Tf  that  which  Genesis  contains  is  oral 
tradition,  it  is  saga".  It  may  be  saga  (if  the  term  be  pre- 
ferred) but  saga  may  contain  the  essentials  of  history,  and  it 
has  never  yet  been  shown  that  Genesis  is  not  substantially  his- 
torical. Further,  Gunkel  assumes,  without  proving,  that  prac- 
tically all  of  Genesis  is  "oral  tradition".  For  him,  ''Genesis", 
^'oral  tradition",  ''saga"  are  convertible  terms,  and  so  the  major 
part  of  his  Introduction  is  a  fine  specimen  of  reasoning  in  a 
circle.  He  has  at  every  point  ignored  the  overwhelming  evi- 
dence of  the  practice  of  writing  among  the  Hebrews  from  the 
Abraham-Hammurabi  period  onward. 

Moreover,  throug-h  the  longevity  of  the  antediluvians  and  the 
patriarchs,  the  whole  period  from  Adam  to  Noah  can  be  bridged  by 
three  generations  of  oral  transmission,  and  that  between  Shem  and 
Abraham  by  two  or  three  at  most ;  in  the  period  between  Abraham  and 
Moses  there  were  unquestionably  written  sources.  Gunkel  and  his 
school  fail  to  note  that  the  memory  of  the  ancients  was  remarkably 
tenacious;  the  absence  of  writing  does  not  necessarily  imply  myths 
and  legends,  but  rather  a  faithful  transmission  of  events  for  the  very 
reason  that  men  had  to  trust  in  the  memory.  The  statement  that 
^'the  writing-down  of  tradition  serves  to  fix  it",  confirms  the  trustwor- 
thiness of  Genesis,  for  Gunkel  has  not  shown  that  the  traditions  are 
untrue;  he  merely  assumes  that  some  oral  traditions  are  unsupported  by 
written  records  and  therefore  unreliable  —  a  palpable  non  sequitur. 

Again,  according  to  Gunkel,  "the  proper  themes  of  history  are 
great  public  events ;  the  historian  mentions  private  affairs  only  when 
they  have  value  for  public  transactions.  The  saga  treats  of  things 
of  popular  interest,  personal  and  private"  {op.  cit.,  p.,  XIII).  But 
surely  the  restriction  of  history  to  "great"  events  is  entirely  arbitrary, 
as  is  also  its  limitation  to  the  "publicity"  of  events.  Personal  and 
family  events  may  be  just  as  significant  as  wars  and  battles.  In  fact 
history  has  as  its  content  that  which  has  happened.  According  to 
Gunkel,  "Genesis  (with  the  exception  of  one  chapter  viz.  XIV)  con- 
tains no  great  political  occurrences ;  its  theme  is  the  history,  not  of 
kings  and  princes,  but  chiefly  of  a  private  family;  we  have  a  mass 
of  details,  which,  whether  authentic  or  not,  have  for  the  most  part  no 
value  directly  or  indirectly  for  real  history". 

•  "From  a  librarian's  standpoint  oral  tradition  is  just  as  much  a  document 
as  anything  else,  and  a  collection  of  oral  traditions  in  a  man's  head  just  as  much 
a  library  as  a  collection  of  written  documents  in  a  book-case.  .  .  In  the  event  of 
careful  memorizing  on  the  one  hand,  and  careless  or  officious  scribal  work  on  the 
other,  oral  transmission  of  a  given  document  may  be  more  exact  than  written 
transmission"  (E.  C.  Richardson  on  "Oral  Tradition,  Libraries  and  the  Hexa- 
teuch",   in  Princeton  Theolg.  Rev.,   Ill,   p.,    196). 


HEBREW   CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD.        I95 

But  are  not  the  accounts  of  the  creation,  fall,  flood,  dispersion,  call 
of  Abraham,  his  sojourn  in  Canaan,  the  Isaac- Jacob  episodes,  the 
Joseph  narratives,  genuine,  even  if  largely,  family  history?  Is  not 
Abraham's  faith  an  epoch  in  the  world's  history?  Does  not  Genesis, 
even  if  cast  in  the  mold  of  family  and  personal  history,  contain  the 
material  for  a  clear  view  of  the  course  of  events  and  of  the  real  nature 
of  the  pre-Mosaic  civilization?  Is  not  history  at  bottom  biography 
"writ  large"? 

But,  says  Gunkel,  "the  chief  characteristic  is  the  poetical  tone 
of  these  narratives.  Historical  writing  is  essentially  prose,  the  saga 
essentially  poetry".  Poetry  is  "the  art  of  idealizing  in  thought  and 
expression"  (Webster  Die).  The  question  is,  whether  Genesis  is 
essentially  an  account  of  that  which  actually  took  place,  or  mere  ideal- 
ization? Genesis  unquestionably  contains  poetry,  both  in  matter  and 
form,  as  4:  23,  4;  9:  25-7;  27:  27-9;  and  especially  chap.  49  and  per- 
haps other  parts ;  but  the  poetical  sections  are  clearly  distinguishable 
from  the  prose,  and  to  characterize  the  body  of  Genesis  as  "poetical", 
is  certainly  a  subjective  and  unwarranted  judgment.* 

It  is  true  that  "the  lofty  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  lends 
itself  to  a  varied  use  of  poetry",  but  the  poetry  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  only  "a  poetic  reproduction  of  the  religious  history,  or  the  poetic 
reproduction  of  the  joy  enkindled  by  such  history,  and  a  poetic  out- 
burst of  the  new  inner  life  which  was  awakened  by  those  historic  ex- 
periences of  Israel'  (Koenig),  as  e  g.  in  the  Song  of  Moses,  Ex.  15. 

The  logic  of  Gunkel  runs  thus :  Genesis  is  saga ;  saga  is 
poetry;  therefore  Genesis  is  poetry.  Gunkel,  indeed,  says: 
''Saga  ist  nicht  Luege'  C'Saga  is  not  falsehood")  ;  neither  is 
poetry  "falsehood",  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  a  product  of  the 
imagination  and  moves  in  the  sphere,  not  so  much  of  external 
facts,  as  of  internal  emotions.  Saga,  under  any  fair  view  of 
the  term,  as  understood  of  the  Genesis  narratives,  is  not  poetry, 
either  in  content  or  form.  Poetry  is  '*an  imaginative  and  metri- 
cal collocation  of  words  so  marshaled  as  to  excite  the  emo- 
tions" ;  saga  is  a  simple,  naive,  prose  narrative  of  actual 
(though  somewhat  embellished)  events.  Poetry  is  one  thing; 
saga  another.  Gunkel  himself  in  the  commentary  treats  the 
narratives  as  prose,  not  poetry.  His  syllogism  is  false,  notably 
in  the  minor  premise,  and  so  is  false  in  the  conclusion.  The 
only  alternative  is,  that  Genesis  contains  authentic  history. 

Naturally  on  Gunkel's  theory,  we  have  no  "historical  facts" 
in  Genesis,  but  at  most  only  an  indistinguishable  blending  of 
history  and  poetry.  Gunkel  criticizes  Cornill  and  Steuernagel 
for  finding  at  least  a  nucleus  of  historical  data.  None  the  less 
he  allows  that  "he  would  indeed  be  a  barbarian  who  would 


*  Gunkel  cannot  quite  accept  the  view  of  Sievers  (Metrische  Studiett),  in  his 
attempt  to  recast  Genesis  in  a  metrical  form;  but  consistency  on  the  part  of  G. 
would   demand  some  such  schematism. 


196  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

lightly  esteem  these  sagas",  for  ''they  are  after  all  more  valua- 
ble than  some  prosaic  statements  regarding  actual  events" ;  but 
in  the  end  v^e  have  only  poetry,  inspiring  poetry  to  be  sure, 
but  still  poetry,  and  not  historical  data.  In  short,  says  Gunkel, 
"Genesis  is  the  literary  deposit  of  oral,  popular  tradition". 
And  yet  we  must  assume  that  "in  Israel,  as  among  the  Arabs, 
there  was  a  guild  of  history-narrators.  These  men,  versed  in 
the  old  songs  and  sagas,  went  from  place  to  place  in  the  land 
and  attended  the  festivals"  (where  they  rehearsed  the  narra- 
tives). Gunkel  allows  that  these  sagas  are  ancient,  those  of 
chapters  i — 11  having  found  their  way  to  Canaan  perhaps  as 
early  as  2000  B.  C.^ 

Gunkel  employs  the  term  saga,  Grafians  generally  the  terms 
myth  and  legend  for  the  matter  in  Genesis ;  but  it  comes  to  the 
same  in  the  end,  for  both  schools  deny  true  historical  value  to 
the  book.  The  logic  of  these  men  is :  no  written  records  in 
Israel  before  1000  B.  C.,  but  merely  oral  tradition ;  no  history, 
but  much  of  saga,  myth,  legend.  We  have  pointed  out  suffi- 
ciently that  writing  in  cuneiform  was  known  among  the  He- 
brews in  2000  B  C,  and  in  the  Phoenician  script  in  1500- 1400, 
and  that  the  direct  evidence  supports  the  contention  that  the 
early  Old  Testament  books  (or  the  substance  of  them)  may 
well  have  been  based  on  ancient  and  authentic  sources. 

B.    HEBREW    CIVILIZATION    FROM     ABRAHAM    TO    JOSHUA. 

The  clans  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob  and  Joseph  occupied 
the  stage  of  history  essentially  as  represented  in  Genesis.  Were 
these  people  rude,  ignorant  and  half-civilized  nomads,  as  the 
Grafians  contend,  or  were  they  as  far  advanced  as  their  neigh- 
bors, the  Canaanites  and  Egyptians?  Here,  again,  all  parties 
to  the  controversy  have  access  to  the  same  sources,  —  the  Old 
Testament,  ancient  records  and  recent  archaeological  discover- 
ies. It  is  largely  a  question  of  the  interpretation  of  the  evi- 
dence. It  is  antecedently  probably  that  the  Hebrews  inherited 
and  maintained  the  social,  cultural  and  religious  traditions  of 
the  great  Semitic  family  of  which  they  were  a  branch.  It  is 
also  probable  that  a  people  who  from  their  first  appearance  in 
history  to  the  last  were  characterized  by  undoubted  intellectual 


'  In  common  with  the  Grafians,  Gunkel  adopts  the  view  that  these  chas.  are 
based  on  Babylonian  sources.  In  that  event  the  question  arises  why  they  may 
not  be   authentic  history. 


HEBREW   CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD.        I97 

acumen,   were  no  less  highly   endowed  originally  than  their 
neighbors.* 

I.  Were  the  Hebrews  Nomads? 

It  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  the  negative  criticism  that  the 
Hebrews  to  the  period  of  the  monarchy  were  nomad  tribes 
without  much  culture.  The  argument  runs  thus:  The  docu- 
ments underlying  the  Pentateuch  (Hexateuch,  eighth  cent.) 
yield  little  reliable  information  of  the  early  period,  but  merely 
a  reflection  of  prophetic  teaching.  Even  in  its  present  form 
the  Pentateuch  represents  the  Hebrews  as  nomads,  not  agri- 
culturists ;  whatever  agricultural  laws  it  contains  arose  in  the 
period  of  the  Judges  and  of  the  monarchy,  before  which  time 
Israel  had  no  need  of  such  laws ;  and  it  is  absurd  to  suppose 
that  Moses  would  promulgate  agricultural  laws  if  the  people 
Hved  in  tents  and  did  not  cultivate  the  soil.  We  examine  this 
hypothesis."^ 

(i)  Agricidture  in  the  Genesis  Narratives.  Genesis  con- 
veys the  impression  that  the  patriarchs  were  not  pure  nomads, 
but  occasionally  tilled  the  soil.  Frequently  one  and  the  same 
passage  implies  both  a  semi-nomadic  and  agricultural  life,  as 
13:  5,  ''they  had  flocks  and  herds  and  tents"  and  ''Abraham 
dwelt  in  the  land  of  Canaan  and  Lot  dwelt  in  the  cities  of  the 
plain"  (13:  8).  "Isaac  dwelt  in  Gerar"  (a  town,  26:  6).  Ja- 
cob's blessing  speaks  of  "the  fatness  of  the  land,  and  plenty  of 
grain  and  wine"  {2y:  28).  In  fact  "Isaac  sowed  in  the  land 
and  found  in  the  same  year  a  hundred  fold"  (26:  12).  When 
it  is  said  of  Reuben  that  he  "went  in  the  days  of  wheat  harvest 
etc."  (30:  40)  and  when  Joseph  relating  his  dream  says,  "be- 
hold we  were  binding  sheaves  in  the  field"  (37:  7),  agriculture 
is  clearly  indicated.  Gen.  42:  i,  "Jacob  saw  that  there  was 
grain  in  Egypt",  43 :  2,  "When  they  had  eaten  of  the  grain 
etc.",  and  similar  passages,  are  unequivocal  proof  that  the 
patriarchs  cultivated  the  soil  to  a  certain  degree.  They  had 
every  inducement  to  such  a  course,  for  Palestine  throughout 

'  Speaking  of  the  early  Hebrews,  McCurdy  says:  "Their  invincible  persis- 
tence nitcntes  in  adversum  testifies  to  the  potentiality  of  the  forces  that  went  to 
the  making  of  Israel.  The  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  the  fountain.  From 
what  divine  heights  then  must  have  descended  the  influences  that  moulded  and  en- 
dowed that  nation  which  gave  us  the  Bible  and  the  vitalizing  forces  of  the  world  1" 
(Hist.  Proph.   and  Mon.,    II,    79). 

^  The  aim  of  the  Grafians  is  clear.  If  the  Israelites  were  nomads  until  near 
the  close  of  the  age  of  the  Judges,  the  Agrarian  laws  of  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant originated  at  a  late  date.  If  on  the  contrary,  the  Hebrews  had  long  been 
semi-nomads  and  tilled  the  soil  at  least  occasionally,  the  agricultural  laws  of 
Exodus  need  not  be  late,  but  may  have  originated  in  the  time  of  Moses.  .  . 
Much  therefore  depends  upon  determining  whether  the  Hebrews  had  passed  be- 
yond the  simple  nomadic  into  a  semi-nomadic  stage  prior  to  the  Exodus. 


198  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  whole  of  the  historical  period  was  the  granary  of  the  East, 
and  it  may  be  supposed  that  in  the  Abrahamic  age  agriculture 
would  yield  a  rich  return. 

A  nomad  is  "one  of  a  pastoral  tribe  of  people  who  have 
no  fixed  place  of  abode,  but  move  from  place  to  place  according 
to  the  state  of  the  pasturage"  (Cent.  Die).  The  ancient  popu- 
lation of  Canaan  may  be  divided  into  three  classes,  nomads, 
towns-people  and  semi-nomads.® 

A  natural  inference  from  the  above  passages  is  that  the 
patriarchs  and  their  clansmen  fall  under  the  third  of  these 
classes,  i.  e.  semi-nomads.  Recently  a  professor  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Leyden,  B.  D.  Eerdmanns  in  a  series  of  O.  T.  Studies, 
has  come  out  strongly  in  support  of  the  view  that  the  Hebrews 
were  much  further  advanced  in  the  patriarchal  and  Exodus 
periods  than  the  Graf-Wellhausen  school  have  allowed.  'The 
patriarchs'",  he  says,  ''are  semi-nomads  who  settle  in  a  certain 
place  and  cultivate  the  soil.  They  build  houses,  and  live  in 
tents  only  as  long  as  demanded  by  circumstances,  depending 
for  subsistence  upon  both  cattle-raising  and  agriculture".^  Ac- 
cording to  Genesis,  the  patriarchs  do  not  live  in  the  desert  like 
the  Beduin,  but  in  the  fertile  valleys  of  Canaan  near  Gerar, 
Beersheba,  Hebron  and  Bethel.  They  do  not  move  constantly, 
but  remain  several  years  in  the  same  place,  raising  cattle  and 
tilling  the  soil.  "The  nomads  of  the  desert  possess  only  cam- 
els, sheep,  goats  and  asses.  Cattle  cannot  be  kept  for  want  of 
pasture"  ( Eerdmanns ).^*^ 

Prof.  G.  A.  Smith  remarks :  "All  scholars  agree  .... 
that  part  of  Israel's  evolution  into  the  agricultural  economy, 
which  we  find  them  following  in  Palestine,  consisted  in  the 


•  1.  The  Nomads  Proper,  who  live  in  booths  and  move  constantly,  their  en- 
campment seldom  being  in  the  same  place  more  than  a  few  days.  They  live  on 
tne  products  of  the  herds  and  flocks,  and  do  not  cultivate  the  ground.  2.  The 
Towns-People,  who  dwell  in  houses,  live  by  trade,  commerce  and  agriculture  (cul- 
tivating fields  near  the  towns)  and  are  on  a  higher  plane  financially  and  educa- 
tionally than  the  preceding.  3.  The  Semi-Nomads,  some  of  whom  keep  goats, 
sheep,  cattle,  but  also  cultivate  a  piece  of  land.  Others  are  more  like  the  towns- 
people. "The  difference  between  these  people  and  the  Beduin  (nomads)  is  ob- 
vious. The  Beduin's  home  is  where  the  flocks  are  pasturing.  The  semi-nomads 
are  people  accustomed  to  a  settled  life"   (B.  D.   Eerdmanns,  Expos.,   Vol.   VI). 

•  Alttestamentliche  Studien,  II :  Die  Vorgeschichte  Israels,  43.  Eerdmanns 
gives  a  resume  of  his  views  in  the  Expos.  VI.  Prof.  G.  A.  Smith  in  the  same 
periodical  mildly  criticizes  Eerdmanns,  but  without  throwing  new  light  on  the 
subject.  In  fact  Smith  allows  that  the  Hebrews  in  the  patriarchal  age  were 
semi-nomads. 

^o  In  answer  to  Wellhausen's  assertion  that  the  Israelites  turned  to  their  old 
nomadic  life  after  the  Exodus,  Eerdmanns  says:  "Our  only  source  is  the  book 
of  Ebcodus;  but  there  it  is  very  clearly  shown  that  the  tribes  do  not  know  how 
to  live  in  the  desert.     After  leaving  Egypt  they  immediately  make  for  Canaan". 


HEBREW   CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD.        I99 

semi-nomadic  stage.  The  narratives  clearly  distinguish  be- 
tween Abraham's  and  still  more  Isaac's  and  Jacob's  manner  of 
life  on  the  one  hand  and  that  of  the  hunting  Ishmael  on  the 
other"  (op.  cit.,  266).  The  admission  that  Abraham  and  Ish- 
mael represent  two  different  types  of  life  is  a  near  approach 
to  Eerdmanns'  view.^^ 

(2).  The  Hehrcivs  as  Semi-Nomads.  That  the  Hebrews 
at  their  migration  to  Egypt  and  subsequently  were  not  the 
uncivilized  horde  of  the  Grafians,  but  somewhat  advanced  in 
the  arts  is  a  thesis  defended  by  historians  from  Ewald  to  Kittel 
and  McCurdy.  *Tt  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  imagine  the 
Israelites  to  have  been  then  a  merely  roving  (or  nomadic)  race. 
Between  fixed  and  roving  tribes  there  are  many  intermediate 
grades;  on  one  of  these  Israel  then  stood"  (Ewald).  The 
same  position  has  been  elaborately  defended  by  Prof.  J.  F. 
McCurdy.  The  residence  of  Israel  in  Egypt  extended  over 
several  centuries.  *'To  have  endured  so  long  it  must  have  had 
inherent  elements  of  permanence  of  a  social  character,  apart 
from  the  virility  of  individual  founders  or  early  leaders  of  the 
race.  .  .  It  is  true  that  during  a  large  portion  of  the  time  of 
the  Hebrew  residence  the  Hyksos,  their  kindred,  formed  the 
controlling  element  in  the  Egyptian  population.  But  the  toler- 
ation made  possible  during  their  regime  was  unknown  and,  in 
fact,  impossible  under  their  successors.  .  .  The  corporate  sur- 
vival of  Israel  in  such  circumstances  is  probably  unique  among 
the  experiences  of  the  tribes  and  nations  of  the  earth"  (Hist., 
etc.,  II,  81— 2). 12 

But  there  were  deeper  reasons  for  the  survival  of  the  He- 
brews in  Egypt.  "The  cardinal  point  is  that  the  central  attri- 
butes of  the  Hebrew  religion  must  have  remained  intact  — 
above  all,  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  the  national,  God.  Consider 
what  this  means.  It  implies  that  for  hundreds  of  years  the 
same  deity  had  been  worshipped  and  the  same  characteristic 
observances  maintained  as  an  essential  part  of  the  tribal  system. 
Otherwise,  I  repeat,  the  survival  of  Israel  in  Lower  Egypt  was 

11  The  Wellhausen  school  seek  to  break  the  force  of  the  above  argument  by 
the  empty  assertion  that  "the  narratives  of  the  patriarchs  in  Genesis  spring  from 
the  ethnological  and  cultural  relations  of  the  monarchical  period",  and  so  have 
no  historical  value.  But  this  is  to  adopt  an  unproved  hypothesis  and  then  to 
build  an  argument  thereon  —  a  clear  case  of  "arguing  in  a  circle". 

"  That  the  Hebrews  preserved  their  identity  "must  have  been  due  to  their 
organized  social  condition.  They  must  have  lived  in  Egypt  in  no  small  num- 
bers, occupying  a  considerable  extent  of  country.  .  .  Moreover,  their  numbers 
must  have  increased  during  the  tranquil  period  of  their  residence;  otherwise  they 
would  have  dwindled  away  to  extinction  under  outside  pressure.  ,,buch  is  the 
law  of  growth  and  decay  among  nomadic  and   semi-nomadic  peoples  . 


200  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

impossible  and  is  to  us  unthinkable.  The  long  and  obscure 
interval  between  the  patriarchs  and  the  Exodus  is  thus  bridged 
over.  The  Exodus  implies,  or  rather  involves,  the  essentials 
of  the  patriarchal  history"  (McCurdy,  op.  cit.,  p.,  86).^^ 

In  short,  the  Hebrews  were  no  mere  nomads  when  they 
entered  Canaan.  "They  had  already  acquired  the  elements  of 
a  settled  government,  and-  these  may  well  have  been  prepared 
for  during  a  fixed  residence,  just  such  as  they  enjoyed  in 
Egypt.  .  .  .  The  people  were,  it  is  true,  unsettled  and  dis- 
couraged by  reason  of  the  hard  bondage;  and  the  messengers 
of  Jehovah  received  an  unfavorable  response  from  the  mass  of 
the  people.  Yet  he  was  still  recognized  as  the  God  of  Israel. 
.  .  Conclusions  such  as  these,  taken  all  together,  make  the 
strongest  arguments  for  the  essential  accuracy  of  the  tradition- 
al conceptions  of  the  character  and  career  of  Israel  in  the  ear- 
lier stages  of  its  history"  (McCurdy). 

Such  too  is  the  view  of  Gressmann.^*  "The  culture  of  the 
Genesis  narratives  is  everywhere  that  of  the  semi-nomads.  .  . 
Where  they  find  opportunity  for  agriculture,  they  resort  to  it 
without  becoming  farmers.  Houses  are  implied  in  Beersheba, 
where  the  soil  is  tilled  and  lentils  raised  (25:  34).  A  failure 
of  crops  in  Beersheba  necessitates  a  removal  to  Gerar.  In  fact 
the  possession  of  camels  by  the  patriarchs  is  not  in  itself  a  proof 
of  nomadism.  Semi-nomads  also  possess  camels,  but  their 
characteristic  is  the  keeping  of  sheep  and  goats,  as  is  the  case 
with  the  patriarchs.  The  nomads  with  their  swift  camels 
cover  an  incredibly  wide  territory;  but  the  semi-nomads  are 
restricted  to  a  narrow  area,  because  their  cattle  must  be  watered 
daily"  (op.  cit,  26). 

(3).  Tent-Life  in  Semi-Nomadic  State.  ^  It  is  clear  that  the  tent 
or  nomadic  life  was  not  wholly  abandoned  in  Israel  until  a  compara- 
tively late  period.  Tent  life  had  its  attractions  even  when  people  had 
fixed  abodes.  Actual  dwellers  in  tents  and  larger  or  smaller  groups 
of  shepherds  were  scattered  over  wide  districts  both  East  and  West  of 
the  Jordan.  In  fact,  "To  your  tents,  O  Israel"  (i  K.  12:  16),  was 
the  watchword   of  insurrection  long  after  the  encampment   had  been 

"  The  above  points  of  McCurdy  have  been  persistenly  ignored  by  such  writ- 
ers as  C.  F.  Kent,  H.  P.  Smith  and  J.  P.  Peters  (who  swallow  the  whole  WcU- 
hausen  scheme  of  "myths"  and  "legend").  McCurdy  accepts  the  theory  of  the 
Codes,    but  holds  that  they   are  sufficiently  ancient  to   yield   authentic   history. 

"  Hugo  Gressmann,  "Sage  u.  Gesch.  in  d.  Patriarchenerzaehlungen"  in 
Zeitsch.  f.  A.  T.  Wissensch.  XXX,  p.,  3.  This  article  by  G.  is  significant  as  show- 
ing that  even  some  Grafians  are  receding  from  the  extreme  views  of  a  decade  ago 
and  allowing  some  historicity  in  the  patriarchal  narratives.  While  American 
Grafians  still  stand  by  Cheyne's  Ency.  Biblica,  a  considerable  number  of  rising 
German  and  Dutch  scholars  are  undermining  the  Graf-Wellhausen  scheme  at  all 
points. 


HEBREW   CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC  PERIOD.        20I 

typical  of  the  national  life.  But  such  isolated  reflections  of  an  earlier 
period  must  not  be  construed  as  proof  that  Israel  dwelt  exclusively  in 
tents  either  in  the  later  or  the  earlier  period.  Finally,  "during  the 
monarchy  the  Israelites  were  no  longer  semi-nomads.  Granting  that 
the  view-point  of  that  period  were  adopted  by  the  Genesis  narrators, 
the  Patriarchs  would  not  have  been  represented  as  sem^'-nomads,  but 
as  dwellers  in  cities.  But  since  no  Old  Testament  passage  can  be 
adduced  which  implies  a  purely  nomadic  life  of  ancient  Israel,  and 
since  the  external  surroundings  teach  directly  the  opposite,  one  must 
beware  of  defending  a  theory  which  floats  in  the  air"  (Eerdmanns, 
Das  Buck  Ex.,  S.  125). 

(4).  The  Agrarian  Laivs  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant. 
The  Grafians,  admitting  that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex. 
21 — 3)  implies  agricultural  conditions,  are  forced  by  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  hypothesis  to  push  its  origin  down  to  the  mon- 
archical period.  If,  however,  the  Hebrews  at  the  Exodus 
were  semi-nomads  and  expected  to  till  the  soil  in  Canaan,  the 
agrarian  laws  of  the  book  fit  in  with  the  circumstances.  Most 
of  these  enactments  either  refer  to  or  imply  agricultural  condi- 
tions, such  as  would  naturally  occur  to  a  lawgiver.  When  the 
Hebrews  entered  Canaan,  "vineyards,  olive  yards,  barley  and 
wheat  fields,  were  found  ready  at  hand.  For  the  cattle  which 
they  brought  with  them  pasture  was  available ;  nor  was  it  nec- 
essary to  turn  many  of  them  to  agricultural  uses,  since  the  oxen 
and  the  asses  and  the  sheep  of  their  serfs  became  their  property 
along  with  the  former  owners.  .  .  Broadly  speaking,  this  semi- 
pastoral,  semi-agricultural  type  of  society  prevailed  throughout 
the  period  of  the  Judges"  (McCurdy). 

The  Mosaic  legislation  regarding  fields,  vineyards,  shocks 
of  grain  (Ex.  22:  5,  6);  the  six  years  of  sowing  and  reaping 
and  the  Sabbatic  years  (23:  10—2)  ;  the  feast  of  harvest  and 
of  ingathering  (23:  16),  and  the  injunction  to  drive  out  the 
inhabitants  of  the  land,  might  well  have  been  promulgated  in 
Egypt.  Eerdmanns  writes :  "As  long  as  the  opinion  was  en- 
tertained that  the  Israelites  first  became  an  agricultural  people 
in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  critics  could  not  assign  the  harvest 
festival  and  the  ordinances  implying  agriculture  to  the  Mosaic 
period.  But  this  opinion  having  been  proved  erroneous,  there 
is  no  objection  to  such  a  dating.  In  antiquity  life  had  a  relig- 
ious import.  Every  transaction  bore  some  relation  to  the  in- 
visible, but  everywhere  present  gods  and  spirits.  The  Israel- 
ites must  have  regarded  the  harvest  as  having  a  religious  sig- 
nificance before  their  migration  to  Egypt,  just  as  well  as  after 
their  conquest  of  Canaan.     There  is  no  proof  or  intimation 


202  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

that  they  borrowed  these  religious  festivals  from  the  Canaan- 
ites"  (Buck  Ex.,  130). 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  cumulative  proof,  the  position  of 
the  latest  professedly  "critical"  and  "scientific"  commentary  on 
the  Book  of  Exodus  (McNeile),  that  the  Hebrews  were  "un- 
trained nomads,  fresh  from  Egyptian  slavery"  (p.,  LXXXI) 
and  that  the  Mosaic  laws  are  an  amalgamation  of  Hebrew, 
Canaanite  and  Babylonian  elements,  is  wholly  gratuitous  and 
un-critical.  In  true  Wellhausen,  Mephistophelian  style  ("der 
Geist  der  stets  verneint")  McNeile  affirms  that  the  civilization 
of  the  Canaanites  "must  from  the  nature  of  the  case  have  been 
more  advanced  than  that  of  the  invaders,  who  had  but  recently 
emerged  from  a  rude  nomad  life"  (p.,  XLVI).  He,  however, 
adds :  "In  our  ignorance  of  Canaanite  laws  this  is  of  course 
conjectural" ;  so  is  much  else  in  McNeile's  work  purely  "con- 
jectural". Will  scientific  critics  brush  aside  the  ancient  He- 
brew records  and  illogically  substitute  mere  "conjecture"  about 
the  Hebrews  and  the  Canaanites  ? 

2.   The  Hebrews  at  the  Exodus  Prepared  for  Mosaic  Legislation. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  make  good  the  claim  that  the 
Hebrews,  though  originally  a  pastoral  people,  soon  advanced 
to  the  semi-nomadic  stage,  building  houses,  tilling  the  soil  and 
gradually  adopting  the  arts  of  civilized  life.  An  increasing 
number  of  scholars  now  hold  that  at  the  Exodus  the  Hebrews 
were  sufficiently  advanced  to  receive  the  Mosaic  legislation  as 
described  in  Exodus.  Some  additional  points  may  be  recorded 
here. 

Contact  zvith  the  Egyptians.  The  Hebrews  in  Egypt  came 
into  contact  with  a  highly  cultivated  people  and  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  been  influenced  thereby.  Dr.  Franz  Delitzsch 
declares  unequivocally  that  Israel  stood  high  in  culture :  "The 
more  Israel  was  then  blended  with  Egypt,  the  more  it  would 
be  influenced  by  Egyptian  culture,  —  God  so  ordained  it  that 
Egypt  was  to  Israel  a  secular  preparatory  school  for  its  future 
national  life  and  authorship.  No  people  of  antiquity  was  so 
adapted  for  this  purpose  as  Egypt.  .  .  The  history  of  Israel 
does  not  begin  with  a  rude,  ignorant  and  undisciplined  horde, 
but  with  the  transition  to  a  nation  of  a  race  which  had  come 
to  maturity  amidst  the  most  abundant  means  of  culture"  (Com. 
on  Genesis,  I,  7).  Prof.  R.  Kittel  refutes  "the  too  frequently 
reiterated  assertion  that  the  Israelites  of  the  time  of  Moses 
were  nothing  more  than  a  rude  tribe  of  nomads,  destitute  of  all 


HEBREW   CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD.        203 

higher  culture.  Fifteen  years  ago  this  error  was  in  a  certain 
measure  excusable,  but  not  now."  (Bab.  Exp.  &  Earl  Bib. 
Hist.,  25). 

Dillmann  says:  "In  constant  intercourse  with  their  kin 
among  the  Hyksos  and  in  the  Arabian  desert,  Israel  grew 
through  natural  increase  into  a  great  people,  developed  its 
peculiar  tribal  organism  and  attained  the  self-consciousness 
of  a  free  and  independent  people.  According  to  the  Exodus 
narratives,  we  must  regard  at  least  a  part  of  the  people  as  sit- 
uated in  the  rich  land  east  of  the  Pelusium  arm  of  the  Nile, 
dwelling  in  houses  (Ex.  12:  4,  7),  mingling  with  the  Egyp- 
tians, cultivating  the  fields  and  gardens,  just  as  the  earliest  and 
latest  historical  data  teach  that  nearly  all  nomads,  settled  in 
Egypt  proper,  became  through  the  character  of  the  Egyptian 
soil  almost  unconsciously  agriculturists,  whereas  the  other  part 
of  the  people,  spreading  out  toward  the  Arabian  steppes,  fol- 
lowed a  nomadic  life.  Through  this  contact  with  Egypt  the 
people  learned  not  merely  a  number  of  arts  and  trades,  but  the 
whole  political  and  religious  system  of  the  Egyptians"  (A.  T. 
Theologie,  p.,  95). 

Though  the  Hebrews  were  benefited  by  the  superior  culture 
of  the  Egyptians,  they  remained  true  to  their  ancestral  faith. 
Through  all  their  trials  they  remembered  the  God  of  their 
fathers  (Ex.  2:  23  f). 

A  recent  English  writer  says :  "When  we  consider  how 
well  organized  the  government  of  Egypt  was  at  this  period,  we 
may  safely  infer  that  these  officers  (Ex.  I)  of  the  children  of 
Israel  had  to  send  in  periodical  reports  of  the  work  done  under 
their  charge,  and  that  where  oral  reports  were  impossible  owing 
to  the  distance  from  the  Court,  these  reports  would  have  to  be 
in  writing.  .  .  In  the  face  of  this,  we  cannot  but  assume  that 
the  most  ordinary  Israelite  was  at  least  familiar  with  the  prac- 
tice of  handwriting,  even  if  he  did  not  himself  possess  it.  while 
a  well-educated  Israelite  may  be  presumed  to  have  himself  pos- 
sessed the  accomplishment"  (J.  G.  Duncan,  Explo.  of  Egypt 
and  O.  T.,  p.,  242). 

Gressmann  points  out  that  when  the  Hebrews  formed  a 
political  confederacy  against  a  great  power,  they  must  already 
have  possessed  a  certain  degree  of  political  culture.^^ 


1'  "The  excavations  of  the  last  decade  have  pushed  back  the  beginning  of 
the  development  in  Israel  much  further  than  was  formerly  allowed;  this  can 
no  longer  be  denied.  We  must  reckon  with  the  fact  that  the  civilized  powers,  on 
whose  borders  Israel  dwelt,  had  already  a  well-developed  legal  code.     The  conclu- 


204  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Recently  there  appeared  from  the  modem  school  a  remark- 
able book  on  Moses  by  Paul  Volz,  who  deplores  the  weakness 
of  criticism  in  laying  so  much  stress  on  the  personality  of  the 
writing  prophets  and  at  the  same  time  denying  the  striking  per- 
sonality and  achievements  of  such  a  figure  as  Moses. ^®  For 
the  purely  literary-historical  school,  says  Volz,  Israel  is  only 
one  people  among  many ;  its  religion  is  no  better  and  no  worse 
than  any  other  (Kuenen).  On  the  other  hand,  the  historico- 
redemptive  school  starts  with  Christianity;  Christ  is  the  reve- 
lation of  God,  and  Christianity  is  the  absolute  religion.  The 
Old  Testament  religion  must  be  judged  and  examined  from 
the  standpoint  of  Christianity ;  it  is  merely  the  preparatory 
stage  of  Christianity,  there  being  no  fundamental  difference. 
The  former  school  makes  everything  human  and  evolutionistic, 
and  eliminates  Moses ;  the  latter  allows  a  divine  element  and 
views  Moses  as  the  greatest  of  lawgivers. 

C.    HEBREW     CIVILIZATION     IN    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    JUDGES. 

The  condition  of  the  Hebrews  during  the  three  hundred 
years  (more  or  less)  of  the  period  of  the  Judges  has  an  im- 
portant bearing  in  this  connection.  Do  the  books,  Joshua  and 
Judges,  contain  reliable  data?  What  was  the  relation  of  the 
Hebrews  to  the  Canaanites?  Finally,  how  were  the  historical 
records  and  the  Biblical  books  preserved  and  transmitted? 

I.  The  Books  of  Joshua  and  Judges. 

(i).  The  Book  of  Joshua.  The  older  authorities,  Jewish 
and  Christian,  held  that  Joshua  or  one  of  his  successors  was  the 
author  and  that  the  matter  is  strictly  historical.  In  the  new 
view  the  book  is  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  compiled  chiefly  from  the  documents  J  and  E  by  a  Deu- 
teronomic  editor  (after  621  B.  C),  and  is  of  course  late.  Our 
limited  space  forbids  a  discussion  of  these  rival  claims;  it  suffi- 
ces to  note  what  is  essential  to  our  purpose. 

The  admission  of  the  divisive  critics  that  the  history  of 
the  book  "is  somewhat  different  from  that  of  the  rest  of  the 
Hexateuch"  and  that  "the  ground-work  is  not  P  as  in  the  first 


sion  is  unavoidable  that  the  pre-Mosaic  Hebrew  tribes  had  at  least  an  elementary 
legislation,  the  germs  of  public  law.  Moses,  from  whom  there  sprang  a  true 
Monotheism  and  whose  Tora  ultimately  became  the  common  law  in  Israel,  must 
have  been  greater  than  Hammurabi  and  Chuenaten"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  27). 

"  "Neuerdings  bricht  die  Erkenntniss  durch  dass  mindestens  ebenso  notwendig 
auch  am  Anfang  der  Israelitischen  Religion  eine  Schoepferpersoenlichkeit  stehen 
muesse.  So  arbeitet  die  gegenwaertige  A.  T.  Forschung  daran,  das  Monument 
fuer   Moses  zu  bauen"    (P.    Volz,   Mose,   Tueb.,    1907,   p.,  a). 


HEBREW   CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD.        205 

five  books,  but  JED"  (Ben.  and  Ad.,  Introd.,  p.,  79)  is  signifi- 
cant. Various  ancient  strata  are  recognized  by  all  critics.  The 
most  remarkable  of  these  is  The  Book  of  Jashar,  allowed  by 
all  except  the  most  radical  critics,  to  have  been  a  very  ancient 
work.  Early  material  runs  through  the  book;  thus  chapter 
one,  though  composite,  *'is  based  probably  upon  an  earlier  and 
shorter  narrative"  (Driver).  So  of  other  chapters,  even  from 
the  Grafian  view-point. 

It  is  generally  allowed  that  back  of  the  codes  J,  E,  and  P 
are  older  sources  from  the  pre-monarchical  and  monarchical 
periods.  As  the  problem  here  is  essentially  that  of  the  original 
strata  of  these  codes  in  the  rest  of  the  Hexateuch,  we  need 
merely  observe  that  the  matter  in  Joshua  is  no  mere  echo  of 
"prophetical  schools"  (according  to  the  Grafians),  but  a  trust- 
worthy narrative  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  records  and  chron- 
icles preserved  in  such  sanctuaries  as  Shiloh,  Gilgal,  Shechem, 
etc." 

(2),  The  Book  of  Judges.  The  older  writers  regarded 
Samuel  or  one  of  his  school  as  the  author  (much  can  be  said 
in  favor  of  this  view)  ;  the  later  critics  see  here  as  elsewhere  in 
the  Old  Testament  a  working  over  of  material  from  different 
sources,  early  and  late.  The  question  of  the  nature  of  the 
component  parts  of  Judges  is  one  of  the  most  complicated  in 
Old  Testament  criticism;  but  the  bearing  of  the  book  on  our 
inquiry  necessitates  a  statement  of  the  trend  of  criticism. 

A  recent  Biblical  Introduction  from  the  Grafian  school 
says :  "The  frame-work  is  due  to  Deuteronomic  editors,  so 
that  it  existed  in  a  Deuteronomic  edition,  to  which  priestly 
writers  made  further  additions.  The  Deuteronomic  work  made 
use  of  earlier  material,  which  is  often  supposed  to  be  a  section 
of  JE.  During  the  monarchy  (850-700),  two  independent 
writers  (J)  and  (E)  made  collections  of  the  narratives  con- 
cerning the  Judges.  These  were  combined  into  a  pre-Deuter- 
onomic  book  about  650.  During  the  Exile  (JE)  was  edited 
by  a  Deuteronomic  editor  who  added  a  system  of  chronology 
and  retouched  the  book,  in  the  interests  of  the  Deuteronomic 


"  Arguments  for  an  early  date:  i.  No  allusion  to  late  events.  2.  The  ref- 
erence to  the  Jebusites  in  15:  63  implies  a  date  before  David's  capture  of  the 
city.  3.  From  9:  27  it  is  clear  that  the  temple  was  not  yet  built.  4.  The  min- 
uteness of  details,  as  in  9:  47  and  all  of  ch.  22,  suggests  an  eye-witness.  5.  The 
detailed  geographical   survey  of  chs.    12 — 19    must    antedate  David. 


206  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

doctrine  of  national  righteousness  and  prosperity"    (Ben.  and 
Ad.).     In  this  view  everything  in  the  book  is  late.^® 

Budde,  Driver,  Moore  agree  substantially  with  the  preced- 
ing position.  Prof.  Moore,  however,  admits  that  we  have  no 
direct  proof  (internal  or  external)  for  determining  the  exact 
date  of  the  various  strata.  ''The  author's  motive,  the  lesson  he 
enforces,  and  the  way  in  which  he  makes  the  history  teach  it, 
are  almost  the  only  data  at  our  command  to  ascertain  the  age 
in  which  he  lived.  Indefinite  as  such  criteria  may  seem,  they 
are,  when  the  character  of  the  work  is  sufficiently  marked, 
among  the  most  conclusive"  (Judges,  p.,  XVI ).^^ 

Omitting  the  introduction  and  the  close,  criticism  takes  its 
point  of  departure  from  the  section  2:  6 — 16:  31.  This,  ac- 
cording to  Driver,  "consists  essentially  of  a  series  of  older  nar- 
ratives, fitted  into  a  framework  by  a  later  editor"  (Lit.).  The 
history  of  each  of  the  greater  Judges  fits  into  a  scheme  seen  in 
3:  7-11  (Othniel).  In  the  accounts  of  these  Judges  "we  have 
the  same  succession  of  apostasy,  described  often  in  the  same 
way,  always  in  similar  phraseology"  (Driver).  The  narratives 
concerning  the  minor  Judges  are  much  briefer.^^ 

The  critics  are  not  agreed  on  the  sources  of  the  first  introduction 
i:  I — 2:5;  the  second  introduction  2:  6 — 3:  6;  the  story  of  Gideon  6: 
i-io;  of  Jehpthah,  10:  6-16  and  of  chaps.  17-21.  A  number  of  other  prob- 
lems await  solution,  but  we  inquire  merely  as  to  unquestionably  ancient 
sections.  _  Critics  of  all  shades  agree  that  the  Song  of  Deborah  is 
ancient,  in  fact  almost  if  not  quite  contemporaneous  wdth  the  occasion. 
From  this  vantage  ground  and  proof  of  ancient  strata  in  Judges,  it 
may  be  inferred  that  other  ancient  sources  and  records  are  imbedded 
in  the  book.  So  far  as  the  matter  of  the  book  goes,  no  statement  or  ex- 
pression is  inconsistent  with  an  early  date;  the  language,  the  local 
coloring  and  the  verisimilitude  indicate  a  high  antiquity.     The  internal 


1®  The  Grafian  scheme  of  the  date  of  the  constituent  parts  is  a  necessary- 
postulate  of  the  hypothesis  that  the  literature  and  religion  of  Israel  date  from 
the  early  writing  prophets  (eighth  cent.)  and  that  the  history  of  the  preceding 
periods  is  written  from  that  view-point.  The  weakness  of  this  view  has  been 
indicated. 

1*  This  means  that  the  critical  analysis  is  entirely  subjective  and  determined 
by  the  view-point  of  the  critic.  The  Grafian  critic  has  no  advantage  over  the 
anti-Grafian;  nor  the  latter  over  the  former.  The  alleged  perfect  articulation  of 
the  Grafian  scheme  is  oflfset  by  the  self-authentication  of  the  book.  If,  therefore, 
we  allow  that  the  book  of  Judges  may  be  heard  as  a  witness  in  its  own  behalf,  we 
are  pursuing  a  Jogical  and  scientific  method.  ^ 

20  Prof.  Moore  remarks:  "It  is  plain  that  the  author  of  Jud.  2:  6 — 16:  31 
did  not  write  these  stories  himself,  but  took  them  from  older  sources.  These 
stories  cannot  have  been  oral  tradition,  or  unwritten  popular  legends,  for,  apart 
from  the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  oral  tradition  had  transmitted  to  so  late  a 
time  such  lifelike  and  truthful  pictures  of  a  state  of  society  that  had  passed  away 
centuries  before,  in  reducing  the  oral  t'radition  to  writing,  the  author  would 
inevitably  have  left  the  impress  of  his  own  style  upon  the  stories  far  more  deeply 
than  is  the  case"  (op.   cit.,   p.,   XIX). 


HEBREW   CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD.        207 

evidence  points  to  a  pre-monarchical  period  as  the  date  of  the  under- 
lying material. 

According  to  Moore,  "in  those  parts  of  the  book  which  are  at- 
tributed to  J,  the  standpoint  of  the  narrator  is  that  of  the  old  national 
religion  of  Israel ;  there  is  no  trace  of  prophetic  influence,  and  we  can 
have  no  hesitation  in  ascribing  this  source  to  a  time  before  the  great 
prophetic  movement  of  the  eighth  century.  Other  indications  point 
to  a  considerably  higher  antiquity".  But  Moore  adds :  "On  such 
grounds  we  should  be  inclined  to  assign  this  source  to  the  first  half  of 
the  ninth  century"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  XXVII).  Do  not  the  lack  of  "pro- 
phetic influence",  the  indications  of  "a  considerably  higher  antiquity", 
the  reflection  of  society  "in  the  early  days  of  the  settlement  in  Pales- 
tine" and  "the  lifelike  and  truthful  pictures"  of  early  conditions,  point 
to  a  pre-monarchical  age  for  most  of  this  material?  The  internal 
evidence  which  leads  Moore  to  assign  this  source  to  the  ninth  century 
logically  compels  us  to  go  back  at  least  to  the  age  of  Samuel." 

Critics  not  bound  hand  and  foot  by  the  Grafian  schematism 
see  much  in  Judges  which,  is  scientifically  provable  as  ancient. 
Thus  Koenig  finds  old  strata  (contemporaneous  with  the 
events)  in  every  chapter  and  deplores  the  tendency  "of  a  cer- 
tain school  of  historiography"  to  ignore  absolutely  ''the  express 
statements"  of  the  sources  and  to  search  out  "new  and  extreme- 
ly doubtful  ones".  Speaking  of  lo:  3-5;  12:  8-15,  he  asks: 
"Why  should  all  this  be  set  down  to  invention  ?"  Divisive  crit- 
ics do  not  deny  the  antiquity  of  the  story  of  Ehud  (3:  15  f) 
or  the  historicity  of  the  bold  figure  of  Jephthah.  "In  like  man- 
ner the  antiquity  of  the  narrative  in  chapter  17  is  witnessed  to", 
and  "the  note  that  the  priests  of  the  city  of  Dan  were  descen- 
dants of  Moses  (18:  30)  must  be  borrowed  from  an  ancient 
source"  (Judges,  Hast.  Die). 

Recently  one  of  the  great  German  authorities  on  ancient 
history,  E.  Meyer,  has  come  out  in  a  strong  defence  of  the 
trustworthiness  of  the  early  historical  books :  "It  was  only 
among  the  Israelites  and  the  Greeks  that  true  historical  liter- 
ature had  an  entirely  independent  origin.  Among  the  Israel- 
ites, who  in  this  respect  as  in  others,  occupy  a  separate  position 
among  all  the  civilized  peoples  of  the  East,  it  arose  at  an  amaz- 
ingly early  period  and  begins  with  highly  important  creations, 
on  the  one  hand  the  purely  historical  narratives  in  the  books 


"  Moore  says  elsewhere:  "It  is  often  found  that  the  impulse  to  write  history 
is  first  given  by  some  great  achievement  which  exalts  the  self-consciousness  of  a 
people  and  awakens  the  sense  of  the  memorable  character  of  what  it  has  done" 
(Hist.  Lit.,  Ency.  Bib.,  col.  2075).  Were  not  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan,  the 
capture  of  Jericho,  the  defeat  of  the  five  kings  by  Joshua,  the  deliverance  by 
Othniel,  the  exploits  of  Gideon  and  Jephthah,  sufficiently  great  achievements  to 
warrant  the  inference  that  here  and  there  a  priest  or  prophet  in  the  period  of  the 
Judges  rose  to  a  consciousness  of  Israel's  worth  and  mission  and  left  a  record, 
however  brief,    of   such   crises? 


208  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

of  Judges  and  i  Samuel  and  on  the  other  the  reconstruction  of 
legend  by  the  Jehovist"  (Gesch.  d.  Altertums,,  sec,  131). 
Meyer  develops  the  same  view  in  his  ''Israel'',  declaring  that 
the  books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  "show  by  their  contents  that 
they  belong  to  the  time  when  the  events  took  place,  and  that 
the  narrator  must  have  been  very  accurately  informed  about 
the  doings  at  court  and  the  character  of  the  actors  in  his  story. 
They  could  not  have  been  written  later  than  in  the  time  of 
Solomon".  Meyer  even  adds  :  "It  is  an  astonishing  thing  that 
a  historical  literature  of  this  kind  should  have  been  possible  in 
Israel,  at  that  period.  It  stands  far  above  every  other  speci- 
men of  ancient  Oriental  history  knozvn  to  us  —  above  the  dry 
official  annals  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  and  above  the 
legendary  stories  of  Egyptian  literature.  It  is  really  genuine 
history.  Its  roots  lie  in  living  interest  in  the  actual  events 
which  it  strives  to  comprehend"  (op.  cit.,  2te  Aufl.). 

This  is  in  sharp  contrast  with,  and  a  stinging  reproof  of 
the  depreciatory  style  of  Stade,  Wellhausen,  H.  P.  Smith,  Kent 
and  the  Grafians  generally  and  ought  to  go  far  toward  estab- 
lishing the  claim  that  the  Old  Testament  books  contain  not 
only  accurate  historical  data,  but  a  true  philosophy  of  history.-^ 

We  are  justified  in  holding  that  the  essential  parts  of 
Judges  are  either  ancient  or  based  on  ancient  and  reliable 
sources  (mostly  written)  and  that  the  book  contains  a  faithful 
portraiture  of  the  period  in  question. 

2.  Relation  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  Canaanites  in  the 
Period  of  the  ludges. 

It  is  a  cardinal  tenet  of  the  Grafian  school  that  the  Hebrews 
acquired  the  arts  of  civilized  life,  including  the  alphabet  and 
the  cultivation  of  literature,  from  the  Canaanites.  We,  too, 
have  shown  that  Canaan  had  been  a  land  of  writing  and  books 
a  thousand  years  before  the  Exodus  and  that  the  alphabet  was 
probably  devised  by  Canaanite-Phoenician  scribes.  But  we 
hold  that  the  Hebrews  even  while  in  Egypt  were  as  far  ad- 
vanced as  the  mass  of  people  in  the  ancient  world  and  that 
their  culture,  literature  and  religion  were  largely  indigenous 
and  only  indirectly  affected  by  the  Canaanites.  We  shall  seek 
to  justify  this  view  so  far  as  relates  to  the  period  of  the  Judges. 

"  Commenting  on  Meyer's  deliverance,  Koenig  says:  "This  is  certainly  a 
very  notable  judgment,  and  it  is  all  the  more  important  as  coming  from  a  scholar 
who  is  equipped  with  a  thorough  knowledge  of  Oriental  languages,  and  who  has 
therefore  an  unusually  far-sighted  vision  of  the  origins  of  ancient  history,  .  . 
The  historical  testimonies  of  the  people  of  Israel  lead  us  back  still  further  on  a 
sure  path  until  we  reach  the  time  of  Moses"  (Expositor,  Apr.,  1911). 


HEBREW  CIVILIZATION   IN  THE  PRE-DAVIDIC   PERIOD.       20g 

(i).  Later  Cana^anites  Lozv  Morally  and  Religiously.  At 
the  period  in  question  (1300-1000)  the  Canaanites  were  mor- 
ally and  religiously,  and  probably  intellectually,  on  the  decline. 
Neither  the  Canaanites  nor  the  Phoenicians  ever  formed  a 
united,  compact  political  body  ruled  by  a  single  head;  they 
were  a  group  of  independent  communities  —  a  confederacy  of 
cities  or  states.  These  isolated  city-republics  were  often  in 
conflict  or  rivalry  with  each  other,  though  generally  acting  in 
concert  in  times  of  foreign  invasion.  Favored  by  situation, 
caravan  routes  and  commerce,  they  built  up  rich  and  powerful 
cities,  and  engaged  in  agriculture  in  the  fertile  plains  and  val- 
leys. But  wealth  begat  indolence,  weakness  and  immorality, 
precursors  of  downfall.  Contrary  to  the  view  generally  enter- 
tained, the  Canaanites  at  this  time  were  on  a  low  plane  in  every 
way.^^ 

According  to  sacre<^  writ  the  inhabitants  and  the  land  were 
''defiled".     "Therefore  I  do  visit  the  iniquity  upon  it  and  the 

land  vomiteth  out  her  inhabitants Ye  shall  not  do  any 

of  these  abominations"  (Levit.  18:25-30;  Deut  12:30).  This, 
testimony  is  borne  out  by  other  ancient  authorities  and  is  ad- 
mitted by  all  except  some  negative  critics  who  uniformly  seek 
to  degrade  and  belittle  the  ancient  Hebrews.  Even  Cornill 
allows  that  the  Canaanites  were  "enervated  by  luxury". 

The  rank  of  a  religion  is  determined  largely  by  its  repre- 
sentation of  the  deity.  The  degrading  character  of  the  Cana- 
anite  religion  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  correspond- 
mg  to  each  male  divinity  is  a  female  and  that  the  religious  rites 
often  degenerated  into  licentious  orgies.^*  Such  a  low  religion 
inevitably  affected  every  phase  of  life  and  cut  the  nerve  of  all 
serious  and  noble  endeavor,  including  literature  in  the  true 
sense.     This  is  the  true  explanation  of  the  fact  that  with  all 


.  ..."  According  to  Kittel,  the  Canaanites  "had  reached  a  relatively  hieh  deeree  of 
?His'  n"L^'4"hJ?'^''or''^'/  voluptuousness  and  dissolute  mLalf  prefaifed" 
(rtist.  ii,  b2).  Their  moral  degeneracy  had  reached  a  point  to  which  no  other 
fnt^v.^h"""'!^  t-Pf''^l^?V  ^-^t  abominations  they  practised  aTerepreseSed 
to  have  been  of  a  kind  which  might  be  said  to  call  to  heaven  for  vengenace.  The 
inH^li;""'  1^"'  to  which  they  were  addicted,  tended  to  defile  theif  conscience! 
fear    Cambr    Bwfe  ^^f'^'^^'^^y  Practised   were  a  disgrace  to  humanity"    (Mac' 

"It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  Hebrew  language  has  no  word  for  goddess. 
Dut_  manjr  for  God.  The  reason  is  obvious:  the  idea  of  a  goddess,  or  female 
divinity,  is  utterly  foreign  to  the  O.   T    —'-—•—      '^'  • 


Tj     *u  -        /•      -r>-      r-  .r  r        ,  .,  ^'^^^^^^^P^rr  T^is  was  elaborately  shown  by 

Baethgen    (in     Der  Gott  Israels  u.   d.    Goet.   d.   Heidsn");    and  so  the  basis   of  a 

eligion  which  grows  out  of  the     '      •     •  - 

srael. 

14 


nature-religion  which  grows  out  of  the  physical  contrast  of  sex,  was  entirely  want- 
ing in  Israel. 


210  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

the  boasted  civilization  ascribed  to  the  Canaanites,  they  have 
left  no  literature,  a  few  scattered  seals  and  scarabs  excepted.^^ 

(2)  The  Hebrews  Morally  and  Spiritually  Superior  to 
the  Canaanites.  All  the  evidence,  both  Biblical  and  inscription- 
al,  supports  the  view  that  the  Hebrews  at  the  conquest  and  in 
the  period  of  the  Judges  were  so  far  superior  to  the  Canaanites 
morally  and  religiously  (and  even  intellectually)  that  they  need 
not  rely  upon  them  for  the  elements  of  culture  and  civiHzation. 
Israel  never  ranked  as  low,  nor  the  Canaanites  as  high  as  the 
Grafian  critics  imagine.  According  to  Koenig  "the  religious 
life  was  a  real  one  in  ancient  Israel.  .  .  If  the  flame  of  rever- 
ence for  Jehovah  had  not  been  kindled  by  Moses,  why  should 
he  and  not  Samuel  have  been  named  as  the  greatest  hero  of  the 
reHgious  development  of  Israel  ?  Hence  there  is  no  reasonable 
ground  for  doubt  that  Gideon  (Jud.  6:11)  contended  for  the 
cult  of  Jehovah  in  opposition  to  the  preference  to  Baal.  .  .  . 
These  ancient  principles  lived  in  the  conscience  of  the  nation, 
and  when  they  were  trodden  under  foot,  as  in  the  instance  of 
Gibeah  (Jud.  19:  23)  the  voice  of  the  moral  conscience  spoke 
out  loudly"  (art.  Judges,  Hast.  B.  Die.). 

Without  moral  and  intellectual,  as  well  as  physical,  super- 
iority, the  Hebrews  would  not  have  gained  decisive  victories  at 
first,  nor  finally  subdued  the  country.  Moabites,  Midianites, 
Canaanites,  Philistines  went  down  before  them.  Even  Stade 
concedes  that  a  less  robust  people  would  not  have  held  out  so 
long.  'That  Israel  maintained  its  ground  against  Canaanites 
and  Aramseans  and  yielded  only  to  the  great  Asiatic  powers 
shows  its  virility".  Stade  well  asks,  how  it  happened  that  an 
Israelite  State  was  established  on  Canaanite  soil,  and  why  the 
Hebrews  did  not  unite  with  the  Canaanites,  to  whom  they  were 
related  linguistically  and  ethnically? 

Stade  is  conscious  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  but  he 
fails  to  relieve  it.  He  has  nowhere  in  his  two  ponderous  vol- 
umes adduced  any  direct  evidence  that  the  Canaanites  were  in 
advance  of  the  Hebrews  in  the  essential  elements  of  culture; 
and  he  admits  that  they  were  inferior  morally  and  religiously. 
He  reluctantly  concedes  that  the  spirit  of  the  Hebrew  religion 
was  immensely  superior  to  that  of  the  Canaanites.  Before  their 
entrance  into  the  West-Jordanic  territory,  the  Hebrews  "had 
cut  loose  from  the  other  nations  and  adopted  a  religion  which 

"  We  have  no  evidence  from  the  inscriptions  that  the  Canaanites  of  this 
period  produced  any  high-grade  literature,  and  much  less  that  any  of  it  served 
as  models  for  the  Hebrews. 


HEBREW    CIVILIZATION    IN    THE   PRE-DAVIDIC    PERIOD.       211 

stood  higher  than  that  of  the  original  Canaanite  population. 
Hereby  they  became  a  nation"  (History,  I,  112).  Three  things, 
says  Stade,  distinguished  the  Israelites  from  the  nations:  I. 
The  absorbtion  of  Canaanite  blood.  2.  The  adoption  of  Ca- 
naanite culture  and  greater  attention  to  agriculture.  3.  The 
worship  of  Jehovah  as  the  national  God.  A  more  logical  for- 
mulation is:  I.  The  worship  of  Jehovah  as  the  God  of  all  the 
earth.  2.  Through  the  Jehovah-religion  the  Hebrews  from 
the  Mosaic  period  occupied  a  higher  religious  and  moral  plane 
than  the  Canaanites.  3.  They  were  benefited  by  the  Canaanite 
culture  and  blood  only  to  a  limited  degree. ^^  A  strange  fact 
is  that  at  the  close  of  all  his  argumentation  in  the  two  works 
under  review,  Stade  admits  that  it  was  the  superiority  of  the 
Jehovah-religion  and  of  the  Hebrew  people  that  assured  vic- 
tory and  supremacy  over  the  Canaanites.  So,  too,  Kuenen  and 
Wellhausen.^^ 

(^).  Hebrezu  and  Cmmanite  Civilization  Compared.  The 
accounts  in  Joshua  and  Judges  indicate  that  complete  extermin- 
ation of  the  Canaanites  was  resorted  to  only  in  rare  cases.  In 
its  stead  were  simple  subjugation,  friendly  alliance,  servitude, 
(or,  rarely,  intermarriage).  Thus  we  are  told  that  the  tribe 
of  Manasseh  acquired  Dor,  Taanach,  Megiddo,  etc.,  but  that 
they  ''could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  those  cities",  though 
they  subsequently  "put  the  Canaanites  to  taskwork,  and  did  not 
utterly  drive  them  out"  (Josh.  17:  11-13).  Similarly  in  other 
districts.  The  Hebrews,  when  brought  into  close  contact  with 
the  natives,  adopted  gradually  some  of  their  customs  and  be- 
liefs. "Ancient  Israel  was  a  genuine  peasant  people.  It  pro- 
duced com,  wine,  oil  and  figs,  and  from  its  herds  milk  and  flesh. 
These  found  ready  purchasers  in  the  Phoenician  dealers" 
(Kittel). 

The  Hebrews  naturally  were  not  all  on  the  same  plane  of 
culture.  The  people  generally  were  probably  not  as  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  arts  of  civilized  society  as  the  Canaanite  city 

'•  Stade,  elaborating  his  views  in  the  O.  T.  Theology,  allows  that  "the  im- 
migrants were  conscious  of  their  superior  prowess  and  moral  excellence.  As 
descendants  of  nomads  and  conquerors,  they  considered  themselves  better  than 
the  natives"  (Theologie,  58).  To  the  above  three  features,  Stade  adds  two  more 
in  his  "Theology",  viz.,  the  intolerance  of  the  Jehovah-religion  and  the  increased 
vitality  of  the   Israelitish   nation   and  religion  gained  through  war. 

*^  Kuenen  concedes  that  the  Jehovah  religion  was  adopted  by  the  Hebrews 
at  some  period  anterior  to  their  entrance  into  Canaan  (Relig.  Israel,  1,  390-403). 
Wellhausen  writes:  "Why  the  Israelitish  religion  with  an  approximately  cqn.-\l 
beginning,  led  to  a  totally  different  ending  from,  say,  the  Moabitish,  cannot  be 
satisfactorily  explained"  (Is.  u.  Jued.  Gesch.,  p.,  35).  Of  course  not,  from  a 
naturalistic  world-view;  but  perfectly  so,  from  a  consistent  theistic,  supernatur- 
alistic   world-view. 


212  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

inhabitants;  but  there  is  no  proof  that  the  Canaanites  in  the 
country  districts  were  more  intelligent  or  had  a  broader  outlook 
on  life  than  the  Hebrews  after  their  contact  with  the  Egyptians, 
Minseans  and  Moabites.  The  fact  is  that  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  favorably  situated  cities,  the  Canaanites  were  an  iso- 
lated and  provincial  people  and  intellectually  inferior  to  the 
Hebrews. ^^  The  latter  had  absorbed  the  best  features  of  the 
old  civilizations;  even  the  so-called  desert-wanderings  had 
brought  them  into  contact  with  surrounding  people  well  steeped 
in  Babylonian  and  Minaean  culture. 

A  recent  writer  of  the  Grafian  school  admits  this:  "Of  special  sig- 
nificance for  the  nomadic  Israelites  was  the  culture  of  the  Minseans. 
The  Old  Testament  speaks  of  the  closest  connection  with  them,  even 
of  direct  influence  from  them;  Moses  flees  into  Midian  to  the  high- 
priest  Jethro  and  marries  his  daughter  (Ex.  2:  13),  and  he  accepts 
the  advice  of  Jethro  regarding  the  organization  of  the  judiciary  (Ex. 
18:  19).  Midian  is  in  Musri,  the  North-Arabian  province  of  the 
Minaean  kingdom.  The  Minaean  kingdom  flourished  according  to  its 
inscriptions  as  early  as  1500  B.  C. ;  by  this  time  it  had  a  finished  cul- 
ture and  was  no  longer  a  new  kingdom.  The  political  influence  of  the 
Minseans  extended  to  Gaza,  the  extreme  limit  of  one  of  the  trade- 
routes;  Southern  Palestine  was  for  centuries  under  the  influence  of 
the  Min^ans,  and  so  were  all  the  tribes  dwelling  between  the  Dead 
and  the  Red  Sea.  Whatever,  therefore,  of  culture  the  Israelites 
brought  with  them  from  the  steppes  will  bear  specifically  Minsean 
marks".  This  is  from  Benzinger's  "Hebraeische  Archaeologie"  (2nd 
ed.,  1907),  and  shows  that  proof  is  constantly  accumulating  from 
archaeological  research  that  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  and  in  the  desert 
were  in  close  touch  with  the  customs  and  institutions  of  that  day  and 
sufficiently  far  advanced  to  record  and  transmit  a  written  revelation 
in  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  Judges. 

As  admitted  by  all  critics,  Israel's  character  during  the 
forty  years'  wandering  ''was  gradually  disciplined  by  a  pure 
and  simple  moral  code"  (Ottley).  But  such  a  Hfe  as  that  of 
Israel  in  Egypt  and  the  desert  is  no  more  incompatible  with  a 
knowledge  of  writing  and  letters  than  the  pioneer  life  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  on  the  bleak  New  England  shores  implies  the 
absence  of  books  and  of  the  general  means  of  culture.  In  fact 
just  as  the  strong  moral  and  religious  character  of  the  latter 
led  to  the  establishment  of  schools  and  colleges,  so  the  Israel- 
ites assimilated  at  least  the  essentials  of  the  culture  of  that  day; 
this  would  include  a  knowledge  of  the  current  systems  of  writ- 
ing. 

Thus  disciplined  the  Hebrews  immediately  upon  their  en- 
trance into  Canaan  took  advantage  of  the  agricultural  and  eco- 

"  In  short,  the  vaunted  culture  of  the  Canaanites  was  a  thin  vaneer  of  civi- 
lization, the  pseudo-culture   so   characteristic   of  commercial   and  maritime  centers. 


HEBREW    CIVILIZATION    IN    THE   PRE-DAVIDIC    PERIOD.      213 

nomic  opportunities,  which  would  scarcely  have  been  the  case 
had  they  been  ignorant  nomads;  in  general,  'once  a  nomad, 
always  a  nomad'.  The  Hebrews  appear  to  have  adapted  them- 
selves readily  to  Canaanite  civic  and  agricultural  conditions; 
they  were  "to  the  manor  (manner)  born"  and  needed  no  long 
tutelage  at  the  feet  of  the  overrated  Canaanites. 

The  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges  furnish  undoubted  proof 
of  the  advancement  of  the  Hebrews  during  the  period  of  the 
Judges  in  the  so-called  technical  arts.  Mention  is  made  of 
doors  of  houses  ( Jud.  19 :  26)  ;  locks  ( Jud.  3  :  23)  ;  tables  ( Jud. 
1:7);  weaving  (Ex.  35 :  35)  ;  embroidery  (Ex.  28:  39)  ;  and 
costly  robes  (Ex.  28:  4,  31).  Pottery  is  assumed  as  well 
known:  bowls  (Ex.  25:  29;  37:  16)  ;  pots  and  shovels  (Ex. 
38:  3;  Jud.  6:  38).  Implying  agriculture  and  commerce  are: 
ox-goad  (Jud.  3:  31)  ;  millstones  (Jud.  9:  53)  ;  ropes  (Jud. 
16:  II);  money  (Jud.  5:  19;  16:  18;  17:  14).  Pertaining 
to  cultus:  molten  images  (Deut.  9:  12;  Jud.  17:  3)  ;  graven 
image  (Ex.  20:  4);  ephod  (Ex.  25:  7  and  often).  Imple- 
ments of  war,  etc. :  sword  (Ex.  5  :  21 ;  32  :  27)  ;  daggar  (Jud. 
3:  16);  spear  (Josh.  8:  18);  razor  (Jud.  13:  5;  15:  17). 
Most  of  these  imply  trade  and  industry  and  were  known  to  the 
Hebrews  before  the  occupation. 

That  a  simple  agricultural  life  is  not  incompatible  with  a 
considerable  degree  of  literary  excellence  is  made  clear  in  the 
oft-quoted  passage  from  Robertson  Smith.  In  accounting  for 
the  classical  Hebrew  and  forcible  diction  of  the  prophet  Amos, 
he  says :  'To  associate  inferior  culture  with  the  simplicity  and 
poverty  of  pastoral  life  is  totally  to  mistake  the  conditions  of 
Eastern  society.  At  the  courts  of  the  Caliphs  and  their  Emirs 
the  rude  Arabs  of  the  desert  were  wont  to  appear  without  any 
feeling  of  awkwardness,  and  to  surprise  the  courtiers  by  the 
finish  of  their  impromtu  verses,  the  fluent  eloquence  of  their  or- 
atory, and  the  range  of  subjects  on  which  they  could  speak  with 
knowledge  and  discrimination.  Among  the  Hebrews,  as  in  the 
Arabian  desert,  knowledge  and  oratory  were  not  affairs  of  pro- 
fessional education,  or  dependent  for  their  cultivation  on  wealth 
and  social  status.  The  sum  of  book  learning  was  small ;  men 
of  all  ranks  mingled  with  that  Oriental  freedom  which  is  so 
foreign  to  our  habits ;  shrewd  observation,  a  memory  retentive 
of  traditional  lore,  and  the  faculty  of  original  reflection  took 
the  place  of  laborious  study  as  the  ground  of  acknowledged 
intellectual  pre-eminence".     (Prophets  of  Israel,   126). 


214  ANTIQUITY  OF    HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

May  not  Moses  and  his  scribes,  though  leading  a  humble 
life  and  unschooled  in  the  misnamed  ''Canaanite  culture",  have 
written,  if  not  as  classically,  yet  as  forcibly  as  the  Tekoan 
herdsman  ? 

Once  in  Canaan,  the  Hebrews  through  force  of  character 
and  inherited  institutions,  and  partly  through  contact  with  their 
neighbors,  soon  eclipsed  whatever  literary  glory  the  Canaanites 
may  have  acquired.  We  shall  see  that  from  the  time  of  Joshua, 
certainly  from  that  of  Deborah,  there  was  a  continuous  stream 
of  literary  activity  to  the  period  of  Samuel,  David  and  Solomon. 

11. 

BOOKS  AND   SCRIBES  IN   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

It  was  shown  above  that  already  in  an  early  period  the  He- 
brews employed  the  same  writing  material  (papyrus,  clay, 
stone,  stylus,  ink,  etc.)  as  the  surrounding  nations,  and  that  both 
the  cuneiform  and  Phoenician  scripts  were  in  use  in  a  period  so 
remote  that  no  ancient  writer  records  the  date  of  their  introduc- 
tion. We  now  adduce  evidence  that  scribes,  amanuenses, 
chroniclers  flourished  in  Israel  in  the  pre-monarchical  as  well 
as  the  monarchical  period. 

I.   EARLY  USE  OF  THE  WORD  BOOK  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  ordinary  word  for  book,  sepher,^^  occurs  nearly  two 
hundred  times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  including  the  earliest  as 
well  as  the  latest  literature.  Of  the  former  are:  Ex.  17:  14; 
24:7;  Josh.  1:8;  8:34;  Is.  29:  II,  18;  37:14.  The  word 
has  the  well-defined  meanings  of  a  writing,  a  letter,  a  hook,  as 
follows:  {i).  A  Writing.  Is.  29:  11,  "words  of  a  book" ;  29: 
12,  "I  am  not  learned"  (literally,  'T  know  not  writing")  ;  Num. 


-•  The  word  sepher,  as  also  sdpher,  scribe,  are  probably  denominatives  from 
saphar,  to  count,  to  relate,  to  write.  Some  would  derive  sepher  from  the  Aramaic 
saphar,  to  cut,  or  shave  off,  whence  dressed  skins  for  writing.  This  etymology  is 
not  generally  accepted.  Since  the  discovery  of  the  Tell-el-Amarna  Letters,  a 
derivation  from  the  Assyrian  has  been  suggested.  There  the  verb  shaparu,  to  send 
a  letter,  and  the  noun  shipru,  a  writing,  a  letter,  and  shipirtu,  a  message,  are  of 
frequent  occurrence.  (Vid.  Winckler's  Tell-el-Amarna  Letters.)  In  these,  the 
large  number  of  Phoenician,  silicit,  Hebrew  glosses,  is  noteworthy  and  would 
indicate  a  constant  interchange  of  words  between  the  Assyrian  and  the  Phoenician 
in  1400  B.  C.  and  perhaps  earlier.  Possibly,  sepher  is  an  old  Assyrian  loan-word, 
finding  its  way  into  the  Hebrew  at  an  early  date.  So  Gesenius-Buhl  and  Brown- 
Driver-Briggs  lexicons,  sub.  voce.  It  ought  to  be  noticed,  further,  that  the  word 
has  no  connection  with  the  usual  Hebrew  word  meaning  to  write,  Kathabh.  If 
the  word  sepher  was  adopted  from  the  Assyrian,  or  possibly  already  from  the 
Babylonian,  did  not  the  thing  signified  go  with  it?  Much  can  be  said  in  support 
of  the  position  of  Koenig,  as  deduced  from  the  Hammurabi  Code,  and  the  Amarna 
Letters,  that  writing  was  known  among  the  Hebrews  at  the  date  of  Exodus,  and 
possibly  even  in  the  Abrahamic  period. 


BOOKS  AND  SCRIBES  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  21 5 

5:  25;  Jer.  32:  10,  "I  subscribed  the  deed"  (literally,  *'I  wrote 
in  the  book")  ;  Job  19:  23,  'learning-  of  the  Chaldeans".  (2). 
A  Letter  or  Indictment.  2  S.  11  :  14,  **David  wrote  a  letter  to 
Joab"  ;  2  K.  5  :  5.  Plural,  Is.  37  :  14 ;  39 :  i ;  i  K.  21 :  8,  "She 
wrote  letters  in  Ahab's  name".  Jer.  32:  12,  14  (deed  of  pur- 
chase) ;  Job  31  :  35,  ''the  indictment";  Deut.  24:  i,  3,  "bill  of 
divorcement".  (3).  Book.  Ex.  27 :  4,  "the  book  of  the  Cove- 
nant" ;  Ex.  17 :  14,  "a  book",  (or  the  book)  ;  Josh.  1:8;  8 :  34, 
"the  book  of  the  law";  Ps.  40:  8  (Eng.  v.  7)  "roll  of  the 
book";  Is.  29:  18;  69:  29;  Dan.  9:  2,  "the  books"  (sacred)  ; 
12  :  I ;  Eccles.  12  :  12,  "of  making  many  books  there  is  no  end"  ; 
Gen.  5  :  i,  "book  of  the  generations"  ;  Num.  21  :  14;  Josh.  10 : 
13;   2  S.  i:  i8.^« 

These  passages  show  that  the  art  of  committing  thought 
to  writing  in  the  form  of  rolls,  letters,  books  and  legal  enact- 
ments antedates  the  Davidic  age.  In  Num.  21 :  14  a  quotation 
is  said  to  have  been  taken  from  "the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Je- 
hovah", a  work  assigned  by  critics  to  a  pre-Solomonic  period. 
In  any  event,  whoever  the  authors  of  the  assumed  J,  E,  P 
and  D  codes  were,  they  uniformly  represent  books  and  writ- 
ing as  common  in  the  Mosaic  age, — a  species  of  circumstantial 
proof  amounting  to  certainty. 

2.    THE    SCRIBE  IN    ANCIENT   ISRAEL. 

A  remarkable  proof  that  great  care  was  taken  in  ancient 
Israel  to  preserve  the  sacred  writings  is  derived  from  the  fre- 
quent reference  to  the  scribe  and  secretary  in  both  the  earlier 
and  the  later  Old  Testament.  The  Hebrew  word  Sopher,'g^n- 
erally  rendered  scribe  or  writer  in  the  American  Revision, 
occurs  fifty-six  times  with  the  following  meanings, 
(i).  ^  Scribe  or  Writer  in  General. 

Is.  36 :  3,  22,  "Shebna  the  scribe" ;  Ps.  45  :  i,  "a  ready  wri- 
ter";  Jer.  36:  26,  "Baruch  the  scribe";  Ezek.  9:  2,  3,  "the 
writer's  inkhorn  by  his  side".  Since  in  early  times  the  number 
of  those  who  could  write  was  small,  the  employment  of  a  pro- 
fessional scribe  became  a  necessity  in  a  civilized  community. 
At  the  court  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  the  office  of  scribe  or  sec- 
retary was  one  of  high  rank.^^     Seraiah  and  Sheva  were  scribes 

«»  Since  the  word  sepher  occurs  in   all  the  Pentateuchal  codes,  the  word  and 
the  thing  are  ancient  under  any  view  of  the  date  of  codes. 

«i  As  seen  above,  sopher  was  probably  imported  at  an  early  date.        We   hnd 
the  Ass.    noun  shapiru   used   as  a  synonym   of  ablu,   secretary;     one   or   the   other 
term   was   often   wanted,    for   the   different   classes    needed   secretaries   to   prepare 
legal   documents   and  other  business  records.     So   doubtless   among  the   Israelites 
(Ency.  Bib.,  col.   4319)- 


2l6  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

to  King  David,  2  S.  8  :  17 ;  20 :  25 ;  Elihoreph  to  Solomon,  i  K. 
4:3;  Shebna  to  Hezekiah,  2  K.  19:2;  Shaphan  to  Josiah,  2 
K.  22\  8.  In  the  following  passages  the  American  Revision 
translates  by  the  word  "scribe"  in  the  text,  but  by  ''secretary" 
in  the  margin:  2  S.  8:  17;  20:  25;  i  K.  4 :  3 ;  2  K.  12:  10; 
I  C.  18:  16;  2  C.  24:  11;  Esther  3 :  10;  Is.  36:  3,  22.  The 
duties  of  this  official  are  not  clearly  defined ;  but  he  seems  to 
have  been  charged  with  preparing  a  record  of  the  chief  events. 
He  may  also  have  been  an  accountant,  since  this  is  one  of  the 
meanings  of  the  word.  The  scribe  stood  near  the  king,  often 
being  a  counsellor :  '']orv2S\\2xv,  David's  uncle,  was  a  counsellor, 
a  man  of  understanding,  and  a  scribe",  i  C.  27  :  32.  According 
to  Jer.  36:  10-12,  20,  21,  the  work  of  the  royal  scribe  was  so 
extensive  that  he  appears  to  have  had  a  special  chamber  or 
office.  See  also  2  K.  18:  18,  37;  22:  3,  8,  9,  12;  2  C.  34:  15, 
18,  20;  Jer.  37:  15,  20. 

(2).  An  Enroller  or  Muster-Master. 

This  was  an  officer  having  charge  of  the  enrollment  and 
enumeration  of  troops.  See  2  K.  25:  19;  Jer.  52 :  25 ;  2  C. 
26:  II,  ''according  to  the  number  of  their  reckoning  made  by 
Jeiel,  the  scribe".  Is.  33 :  18,  "Where  is  he  that  counted  ?" 
(margin,  "the  scribe").  Probably  Jud.  5:  14  belongs  here: 
"They  that  handle  the  marshal's  staff"  (margin,  "the  staff  of 
the  scribe").  The  scribe  in  this  sense  was  "a  kind  of  adjutant- 
general"   (Moore,  Judges,  151). 

(3).  One  Skilled  in  the  Sacred  Books. 

Of  these  Ezra  is  the  type.  Ezra  7 :  6,  "he  was  a  ready 
scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses";  7:  11,  "Ezra,  the  priest,  the 
scribe";  Neh.  8:  i,  4,  9,  13.  According  to  Neh.  13:  13,  the 
scribes  were  of  nearly  the  same  rank  as  the  priests :  "I  made 
treasurers  over  the  treasures,  Shelamiah  the  priest  and  Zadok 
the  scribe".  The  guild  of  the  professional  scribe  was  indicated 
by  the  inkhorn  girded  at  the  side,  Ezek.  9 :  2,  3.  The  services 
of  scribes  were  in  such  constant  demand  that  sometimes  whole 
families  were  members  of  the  order,  i  C.  2 :  55,  "the  families  of 
scribes  etc.,".  In  the  time  of  Josiah,  scribes  were  regularly 
appointed  officials,  2  C.  24:  13. 

(4).  The  Shoter. 
The  word  shoter  rendered  "officer",  in  the  American  Revi- 
sion, in  Ex.  5:6,  10,  14,  19  and  in  other  places,  is  frequently 
rendered  scribe  in  the  Septuagint.     "Evidently  Sopherim  and 


BOOKS  AND  SCRIBES  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  21/ 

Shoterim  were  synonymous  terms  and  could  be  used  of  any 
subordinate  office  which  required  ability  to  write"  (En.  Bib., 
col.,  4320)  .^2 

(5).  The  Char  torn. 
Another  strange  word  is  Clmrtom,  Gen.  41 :8;  24:7;  Ex. 
7:  II,  22;  8:  3,  14,  15;  9:  II,  generally  translated  magician, 
but  in  the  Amer.  Rev.  margin,  Gen.  41  :  8,  "sacred  scribe". 
It  is  probably  traceable  to  cheret,  a  stylus,  and  denotes  first  a 
writer  of  hieroglyphics,  and  then  an  interpreter  of  the  sacred 
writings.  As  this  passage  stands  in  the  early  document  E, 
the  word  must  have  been  long  in  use  and  well  understood  by 
writer  and  reader. 

(6).   The  Mazkir. 

At  the  courts  of  David  and  Solomon  important  events  were 
recorded  by  regularly  appointed  scribes  and  chroniclers.  Thus 
under  David,  ''Jehoshaphat  was  the  recorder  (mazkir)  and 
Seraiah  was  scribe";  2  S.  8 :  16,  17.  Under  Solomon,  "Eli- 
horeph  and  Ahijah,  scribes;  Jehoshaphat,  the  recorder",  i  K. 
4:3-.  See  also  2  K.  18 :  18,  37 ;  Is.  36 :  3,  22 ;  2  C.  34 :  8.  The 
mazkir  was  "one  of  the  court-officers  whose  duty  it  was  to 
record  noteworthy  contemporary  events,  in  order  that  the  king 
might  call  them  to  remembrance.  Compare  Esther  6:1;  Ex. 
17 :  14.  He  was  the  M agister  memoriae  of  the  Roman  Emper- 
ors" (Biihl-Ges.  Lex.).  The  mazkir  was  the  royal  remem- 
brancer.^^ 

(7)-   The   Tiphsar. 

The  unusual  word  tiphsar  is  translated  "scribe"  in  the  Am. 
Rev.,  margin,  Jer.  51 :  2y.  Lenormant  and  Cheyne  derive  it 
from  the  Assyrian  dup-sharru,  tablet-writer,  occurring  fre- 
quently in  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  contract-tablets.  The 
word  was  probably  in  current  use  among  the  Hebrews  from 
very  early  times  and  indicates  their  knowledge  of  tablet-writing. 

(8).  Jeremiah  and   the  Scribe  Baruch. 
The  Book  of  Jeremiali  refers  frequently  to  the  service  rendered  to 
the  prophet  by  the  scribe  Baruch.     'Then  took  Jeremiah  another  roll, 

"  Koenig  directs  attention  to  the  fact  that  shoterim  are  mentioned  not  merely 
as  Egyptian  taskmasters  over  the  Hebrews,  Ex,  s :  6,  but  also  as  Hebrew  officers  of 
the  Mosaic  period.  Num.  ii:  i6;  Deut.  i:  15;  16:  18;  20:  5,  8,  and  regards 
this  harmony  of  representation  as  implying  a  knowledge  of  writing  among  the 
Hebrews  of  the  Exodus. 

"  "It  was  the  duty  of  the  sopher  to  issue  the  public  documents;  of  the 
mazkir  to  preserve  them  and  to  incorporate  them  into  the  proper  connection  of  the 
history  of  the  kingdom.  Throughout  the  ancient  East  both  offices  existed  gener- 
ally"   (F.   Delitzsch). 


2l8  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

and  gave  it  to  Baruch  the  scribe,  who  wrote  therein  from  the  mouth  of 
Jeremiah  all  the  words  of  the  book  which  Jehoiakim  had  burned  in  the 
fire ;  and  there  were  added  unto  them  many  like  words",  36 :  32.  See 
also  36:  1-6,  9-38;  43:  4-7;  45'  5.  We  have  here  a  typical  example  of 
the  relation  of  the  scribe  and  disciple  to  the  prophet.  If  Jeremiah  had 
an  amanuensis  who  wrote  down  carefully  the  words  of  the  master, 
it  is  altogether  likely  that  other  prophets  took  a  similar  care  to  have 
their  messages  recorded  in  permanent  form. 

III. 
LITERATURE    IN    THE   DAVID-SOLOMON    PERIOD. 

Critics  of  all  shades  admit  literature  of  a  high  grade  existed 
in  Israel  shortly  after  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy.  The 
references  in  Samuel,  Kings  and  Chronicles  to  old  and  authen- 
tic books  and  documents  is  a  direct  proof  that  the  art  of  com- 
position in  the  archaic  Hebrew  script  had  attained  a  high  stage 
in  the  David- Solomon  period.  We  describe  briefly  some  of 
these  ancient  records.^* 

I.  David's  lament  over  saul  and  Jonathan. 

The  essentially  Davidic  authorship  of  the  "Lament  over 
Saul  and  Jonathan",  2  S.  i  :  18-27,  is  admitted  by  most  critics; 
also  that  it  was  committed  to  writing  from  the  first.  Kautzsch 
says :  ''The  doubts  occasionally  expressed  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  song  are  now  silenced ;  in  every  age  men  have  recog- 
nized here  a  genuine  pearl  of  Hebrew  poetry"  (Abriss  d.  Altt. 
Schrift turns).  So,  too,  Prof.  H.  P.  Smith  :  ''There  seems  to  be 
absolutely  nothing  in  the  poem  which  is  inconsistent  with  its 
alleged  authorship"  (Samuel,  p.,  258).  This  is  strong  lan- 
guage. If  David  could  write  such  a  "beautiful  elegy"  (C.  F. 
Kent),  is  it  not  prima  facie  evidence  that  he  wrote  other 
poems  ?^^ 

2.  David's  letter  to  joab. 

2  S.  II  :  14  is  significant,  for  it  implies  the  use  of  writing 
in  some  generally  understood  script :  "David  wrote  a  letter  to 
Joab  and  sent  it  by  the  hand  of  Uriah".  This  verse  is  found 
in  a  stratum  regarded  by  critics  as  written  in  the  age  of  Solo- 

**  Kautzsch  assigns  the  following  sections  to  the  10 — 9  centuries:  in  i  Sam- 
uel, most  of  chas.  9  to  11;  most  of  13  and  14;  16:  14-23;  most  of  18,  21,  231 
25:  1-44;  most  of  28;  all  of  29 — 31.  In  2  S.  most  of  chs.  i — 20;  21:  15-22; 
23:   8-39.      I    K.   ch.    I ;     2:    13-46;     3:    5-28;    most   of  4 — 11. 

"  That  the  Lament  of  David  over  Abner,  2  S.  3:  33 — 4,  is  genuine,  even 
though  no  authority  is  cited,  is  generally  admitted.  It  may,  however,  be  a  ques- 
tion whether  this  one  strophe,  complete  indeed  in  itself,  is  the  whole  of  the  dirge, 
or  only   a  part  of  the  original. 


LITERATURE  IN  THE  DAVID-SOLOMON  PERIOD.  219 

men  or  not  much  later.  The  whole  account  is  realistic  in  a  high 
degree;  and  this  statement  regarding  the  letter  is  so  entirely 
incidental  that  its  historicity  cannot  be  reasonably  questioned. 
Some  have  supposed  that  since  Uriah  v^as  the  bearer  of  his  own 
death-sentence,  the  letter  was  not  composed  in  the  Phoenician 
script,  but  in  an  (assumed)  system  of  conventional  signs  (cf. 
Iliad,  VI,  169-170).  But  just  as  ''the  sad  characters"  of  the 
Bellerophon-letter  were  written  on  a  folded  and  sealed  tablet, 
so  here  the  tablet  of  wax  or  gypsum  was  sealed,  and  the  con- 
tents unknown  to  the  bearer.  Nothing  forbids  our  holding 
that  the  letter  of  David  was  composed  in  Hebrew  and  in  the 
script  then  current. ^^ 

3.  THE  SCRIBE  SERAIAH. 

The  statement,  2  S.  8:  17,  ''Seraiah  was  scribe",  shows 
that  one  of  the  regular  officers  of  the  court  of  David  was  a 
secretary  whose  duty  was  doubtless  in  part  to  keep  a  written 
record  of  the  chief  events.  This  passage,  found  in  the  oldest 
source  of  the  book  of  Samuel,  unquestionably  indicates  the 
literary  use  of  writing  in  Israel  as  well  established  and  there- 
fore of  early  date. 

4.    PSALMS    OF    DAVID. 

The  number  of  Psalms  written  by  David  is  not  definitely 
known.  It  the  titles  and  superscriptions  could  be  accepted  as 
authentic,  the  number  would  be  about  74.  As  seen  above, 
Ewald,  Briggs  and  others  regard  some  fourteen  Psalms  as 
essentially  Davidic.^^  A  considerably  larger  number  were  in- 
spired by  David.  The  situation  is  described  by  Dr.  J.  D.  Dav- 
is :  ''Tradition,  not  a  late  tradition,  but  ancient  native  tradition 
almost  contemporary  with  David,  both  directly  and  indirectly, 
ascribes  the  composition  of  psalms  to  him.  His  fondness  for 
music  is  recorded  in  the  historical  books ;  he  played  skillfully 
on  the  harp  (i  S.  16:  18-23;  2  S.  6:  5),  and  he  arranged  the 
praise  for  the  sanctuary  ( i  C.  6  :  31 ;   16:7;  41,  42 ;  25  :  i  sq.). 


36  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  words  "wrote  a  letter"  are  kathabh  sepher, 
literally  wrote  an  epistle  or  book,  (Sept.,  Biblia),  the  words  uniformly  employed 
in  the  O.  T.  to  denote  ordinary  writing  in  the  Phoenician  script.  An  exactly 
parallel  passage  of  somewhat  later  date,  but  reflecting  an  ancient  custom,  occurs 
in  I  K.  21:  8;  "Jezebel  wrote  letters  in  Ahab's  name  and  sealed  them  with 
his  seal",  which  implies  sealing  in  the  ancient  way.  The  Samaria  Ostraca, 
recently  discovered,  render  it  clear  that  Jezebel's  letter  was  written  in  the 
Hebrew   language  and   the   archaic    Hebrew  script. 

"  The  Psalms  in  the  Hebrew  are  frequently  introduced  by  a  preposition 
denoting  of,  or  belonging  to,  the  so-called  lamed  auctoris.  This  in  some  cases 
certainly  means  authorship.  According  to  the  later  criticism,  "the  lamed  is  not 
the  lamed  of  authorship,  as  has  generally  been  supposed"  (Briggs,  Psalms,  1,  LXI). 


220  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

.  .  .  His  musical  activity  is  referred  to  by  various  authorities ; 
Amos  (6:5),  Ezra  (3:  10),  Nehemiah  (12:  24,  36,45,  46),  the 
son  of  Sirach  (Ecclus.  47:  8,  9).  .  .  The  times  of  David, 
moreover,  were  calculated  to  call  forth  devotional  literature; 
for  the  revival  and  reformatory  work  of  Samuel  had  been  in 
progress  for  a  generation,  the  spirituality  of  religion  had  been 
urgently  insisted  upon,  interest  in  the  sanctuary  had  been  re- 
awakened, and  preparations  were  being;  made  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  temple  on  a  scale  of  great  magnificence"  (Bib,  World, 
VII,  p.,  502). 

Even  if  the  number  of  Davidic  Psalms  is  not  as  great  as 
was  formerly  supposed,  the  fact  that  a  man  of  war  like  David 
wrote  noble  and  inspiring  hymns,  is  an  indirect  proof  that  men 
living  in  the  time  of  Moses  and  of  the  Judges  might  likewise 
write  poems,  or  at  least  historical  records  and  memoranda.^® 

S.  David's  last  prophetic  words. 

2  S.  23:  1-7  contains  a  poem  introduced  as  the  "Last 
Words  of  David".  Standing  in  an  early  stratum  of  the  Book 
of  Samuel,  it  is  on  a  priori  grounds  authentic.  According  to 
H.  P.  Smith,  "both  the  vocabulary  and  thought  show  it  to  be 
a  comparatively  late  production"  (Samuel,  381).  Few  He- 
braists would  pronounce  the  language  as  necessarily  late;  and 
the  "thought"  can  be  pronounced  "late"  only  on  the  unproved 
Grafian  assumption  that  all  the  codes  are  late.  G.  Baur  remarks 
that  only  "hypercritics"  deny  the  authenticity.  As  the  negative 
criticism  has  nothing  direct  to  offer,  but  builds  on  subjectivism, 
we  regard  the  Biblical  account  as  well  sustained. 

6.  OTHER   WRITINGS    OF    DAVID. 

David  seems  to  have  been  the  author  of  other  writings. 
In  I  C.  23 :  27  we  read :  "By  the  last  words  of  David  the  sons 
of  Levi  were  numbered".  The  American  Revision,  margin, 
reads,  "in  the  last  acts",  which  is  preferable.  A  more  literal 
rendering  is :  "In  the  last  acts  of  David  is  the  numbering  of 
Levi".  Under  this  view,  the  reference  is  to  a  lost  book  of  an- 
nals or  statistics.     There  is  mentioned  also,  "The  Writing  of 

S8  Of  Psalm  18  (=  3  S.  22),  one  of  the  noblest  of  productions,  Briggs  says: 
After  removing  the  glosses,  there  is  nothing  that  bars  the  way  to  his  author- 
ship (Ps.  I,  141).  The  man  who  could  write  such  a  poem  could  write  others. 
Driver,  adopting  the  common  view  of  the  negative  critics  that  David  had  inferior 
literary  talents,  finally  remarks:  "On  the  other  hand,  if  Deborah,  long  before 
David's  time,  had  'sung  unto  Jehovah'  (Judges  5:  3),  there  can  be  no  a  priori 
reason  why  David  should  not  have  done  the  same;  and  3  S.  23 :  1  the  expression 
•the  sweet  singer  of  Israel'  implies  that  David  was  the  author  of  religious  songs" 
(Literature,  p.,    358). 


LITERATURE  IN  THE  DAVID-SOLOMON  PERIOD.  221 

David  and  Solomon",  in  2  C.  35  :  4:  "Prepare  yourselves  after 
your  fathers'  houses  by  your  courses  according  to  the  writing 
of  David  king  of  Israel  and  according  to  the  writing  of  Sol- 
omon his  son".  It  would  seem  that  the  lost  works  here  men- 
tioned were  notes  or  writings  of  David  and  Solomon  in  which 
were  recorded  the  laws  for  the  guidance  of  the  priests  and  Le- 
vites  in  the  sanctuary. 

The  prophets  of  the  David-Solomon  period  produced  a 
large  number  of  booklets  and  records,  which,  though  suffered 
to  perish,  are  referred  to  in  the  canonical  scriptures,  as  follows. 

7.   THE    HISTORY    OF    SAMUEL  THE    SEER. 

"Now  the  acts  of  David  the  king,  first  and  last,  behold  they 
are  written  in  the  history  (Heb.  zt'ords)  of  Samuel  the  seer, 
and  in  the  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  history  of 
Gad  the  seer"  (i  C  .29:  29).  It  has  been  held  that  the  first 
of  these  works  is  the  extant  Book  of  Samuel,  since  certain  sec- 
tions of  Samuel  and  Chronicles  agree  almost  verbally.  But  a 
closer  examination  shows  that  the  document  quoted  by  the 
Chronicler  was  considerably  more  extensive  than  our  canonical 
Samuel.  The  natural  inference  is  that  the  authors  of  Samuel 
and  Chronicles  quoted  from  a  history  of  Samuel  now  lost. 

8.   THE    HISTORY   OF    NATHAN    THE   PROPHET. 

This  is  mentioned  in  i  C.  29 :  29  quoted  above.  As  Nathan 
was  a  prophet  of  commanding  influence  at  the  court  of  David, 
and  conversant  with  the  real  drift  of  events,  we  are  not  sur- 
prised that  he  wrote  a  history  of  that  part  of  the  reign  of  David 
with  which  he  was  especially  familiar.  In  2  C.  9 :  29  we  read : 
"Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Solomon,  first  and  last,  are  they 
not  written  in  the  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet  ?"  From  this 
it  may  be  inferred  that  he  also  wrote  an  account  of  Solomon's 
reign.^^ 

9-    THE   HISTORY    OF   GAD   THE    SEER. 

The  above  passage  in  Chronicles  likewise  mentions  this 
work.  The  prophet  Gad  was  counsellor  of  David  in  early  life 
(l  S.  22:  5).     Subsequently  he  announced  the  divine  condem- 


"  Alas!  of  all  the  lost  works  of  antiquity,  is  there  any,  heathen  or  sacred, 
to  be  named  with  the  loss  of  the  biography  of  David  by  the  prophet  Nathan?  We 
can,  however,  form  some  notion  of  these  lost  books  by  the  fragments  of  the  his- 
torical writings  that  are  left  to  us  in  the  Prophetical  Books  of  Isaiah  and  Jere- 
miah, and  also  by  the  likelihood  that  some  of  the  present  canonical  books  were 
founded  upon  the  more  ancient  works  which  they  themselves  must  have  tended  to 
supersede    (Stanley,  History  of  the  Jewish  Church,   Vol.    I.,   p.,   395). 


222  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW    LITERATURE. 

nation  of  the  royal  census  (2  S.  24:  ii),  and  advised  the  erec- 
tion of  an  altar  on  Araunah's  threshing-floor  (2  S.  24:  18). 
He  was  therefore  qualified  to  write  a  history  of  the  first  part 
of  David's  reign.  In  regard  to  these  three  lost  books  on  the 
reign  of  David,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  events  in  the 
king's  life  must  have  been  well  known  to  Samuel  and  in  the 
schools  of  the  prophets,  and  that  they  would  take  steps  to  keep 
a  complete  record. 

10.   THE  CHRONICLES  OF   KING  DAVID. 

I  C.  27 :  24 :  ''Neither  was  the  number  put  into  the  account 
in  the  chronicles  of  King  David".  As  this  passage  stands  in  the 
account  of  the  numbering  of  the  people,  the  chronicler  doubt- 
less means  that  the  details  of  the  census  were  not  entered  in 
the  official  records.  The  book  would  thus  appear  to  have  con- 
tained among  other  matters,  a  transcript  of  statistical  tables. 
''From  them  may  have  been  derived  the  formal  summaries  of 
wars  such  as  are  given  in  2  S.  8:  1-15,  and  lists  of  officials 
such  as  those  in  2  S.  8:  16-18;  20:  23-26;  23:  8-39  (Kirkpat- 
rick,  Samuel,  p.,  11)". 

II.   THE  BOOK  OF  THE  ACTS   OF   SOLOMON. 

In  the  Books  of  Kings  three  documentary  sources  are  men- 
tioned:  (i)  The  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon,  i  K.  11:  41; 
(2)  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel,  i  K. 
14 :  19 ;  (3)  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah, 
I  K.  14:  29.  That  these  are  independent  works  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  for  the  history  of  Solomon  only  the  first  is  cited ; 
for  the  history  of  the  kings  of  Israel  only  the  second;  and  for 
the  history  of  the  kings  of  Judah  only  the  third. 

Thus  it  is  certain  that  the  prophets  were  the  authors  of  his- 
torical books;  and  we  are  therefore  justified  in  holding  that 
the  book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon  was  composed  largely  of  ex- 
cerpts from  prophetical  writings,  and  perhaps  chiefly  from  the 
three  mentioned  in  2  C.  9 :  29. 

12.   THE    LOST    PROVERBS    OF    SOLOMON. 

There  must  have  been  intense  literary  activity  in  the  two  and  a 
half  centuries  between  Solomon  and  Hezekiah,  for  we  are  told,  Prov- 
erbs, 25:  I,  "These  also  are  proverbs  of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of 
Hezekiah  copied  out",  the  reference  being  to  chapters  25-29  inclusive. 
The  peculiarities  of  language  and  matter  bear  witness  to  the  gradual 
growth  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  Since  Solomon  is  said  to  have  spok- 
en three  thousand  proverbs  (i  K.  4:  32)  and  the  number  transmitted  is 
only  about  540  (some  of  which  are  repeated)  it  is  probable  that  several 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE.  223 

collections  of  his  proverbs  were  extant,  and  that  scribes  gathered  into 
one  book  such  as  suited  a  religious  purpose.  The  word  translated 
"copied  out",  meaning  also  "compiled",  "arranged  in  order",  may  indi- 
cate either  one  book  or  many  as  the  source  of  the  collection.  Whether 
Hezekiah's  men  merely  copied  out,  or  also  compiled  and  edited  is  im- 
material, since  under  any  view  some  book  or  record  existed  from  which 
they  selected.  The  view  of  some  that  these  proverbs  were  handed 
down  orally  is  wholly  without  support. 

13-    SUMMARY. 

That  the  David-Solomon  period  was  far  advanced  in  what 
may  be  called  literature  in  that  age  is  evident.  But  according 
to  the  negative  criticism,  Hebrew  literature  arose  only  in  the 
ninth  century.  Wellhausen  says :  "Before  850  B.  C.  we  have 
no  statistics.  .  .  Hebrew  literature  first  flourished  after  the 
Syrian  wars.  .  .  The  reason  why  EHjah  and  Elisha  left  no 
writing,  while  Amos  did,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  former  was 
a  non-Hterary,  the  latter  a  literary  age".  So  too  Kuenen  :  'Ts- 
raelitish  literature  dates  from  this,  i.  e.  the  eighth  century,  or 
at  all  events  not  much  earlier".  Smend  says :  *'The  oldest 
literature  of  the  Old  Testament  arises  as  to  substance  in  the 
regal  period,  and  in  its  present  form  not  until  the  late  regal 
period".*^ 

Such  is  the  uniform  assumption  of  the  Grafians,  —  an 
assumption  based  on  the  prior  assumption  that  the  Hebrews 
had  no  opportunity,  disposition  or  suitable  environment  to 
record  the  achievements  of  their  race  or  to  sing  the  praises  of 
Jehovah.  The  evidence  thus  far  adduced  shows  that  this 
remarkable  people  at  the  Exodus  and  even  during  the  some- 
what unsettled  times  of  the  Judges  were  as  far  advanced  as 
their  neighbors  and  as  deeply  concerned  in  the  perpetuity  of 
their  inherited  institutions.  The  reader  will  not  be  surprised 
to  find  a  very  considerable  body  of  records,  historical  memo- 
randa and  even  the  most  elevated  poetry  in  the  period  of  the 
Judges. 

IV. 

PRE-DAVIDIC    LITERATURE. 

We  come  now  to  the  most  difficult  part  of  our  thesis.  What 
is  the  nature  of  the  evidence  that  the  Hebrews  had  at  least  a 
limited  body  of  literature,  written  literature  (if  the  tautology 


*<>  The  American  Grafians  fall  in  with  the  above.  Thus  Prof.  C.  F.  Kent 
says:  "The  conditions  were  first  developed  among  the  Hebrews  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  monarchy"  (Nar.  Begin.  Heb.  Hist.,  p.,    i8).     See  above,  chap.   I. 


224  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

be  allowed),  prior  to  David  by  some  centuries,  even  as  far  back 
as  the  time  of  Moses?  Here  again  we  reason  back  from  the 
known  to  the  unknown. 

It  is  clear  that  writing  and  literature  were  extensively  cul- 
tivated in  the  early  years  of  the  monarchy.*^  There  must  have 
been  pamphlets,  biographies,  histories,  poems,  state  records, 
chronicles,  and  booklets  generally,  from  which  later  writers 
quoted,  but  which  subsequently  disappeared.  Only  the  titles 
of  some  of  them  and  an  occasional  citation  have  been  preserved. 
But  the  material  at  command  is  sufficiently  ample  and  specific 
to  enable  us  to  construct  a  strong  argument  for  the  view  that 
the  era  of  Davidic  literature  was  preceded  by  many  years  of 
practice  in  writing  and  composition.  The  classic  Hebrew  and 
the  finished  style  of  the  admittedly  earliest  Hebrew  literature 
(though  the  "style"  of  Hebrew  is  never  ''finished"  in  the  classic 
Greek  sense)  did  not  spring  up  over  night,  but  were  the  fruitage 
(in  a  fertile  soil)  of  a  long  period  of  growth  and  development 
in  all  kinds  of  literature.  We  describe  some  of  these  early 
writings. 

I.    THE    BOOK    OF  THE   WARS    OF    JEHOVAH. 

I.  The  twenty-first  chapter  of  Numbers  contains  three  po- 
etical quotations,  the  first  of  which  is  affirmed  explicitly  to  have 
been  taken  from  the  "Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah",  v.  14. 
The  occasion  of  the  quotation  is  a  description  of  the  route  of 
Israel  beyond  Moabite  territory  and  to  the  border  of  the  Amor- 
ites.  Since  the  Arnon  was  in  dispute,  it  is  possible  that  the 
poem  celebrated  a  war  for  its  possession;  the  writer  adduces 
a  few  lines  as  proof  that  the  Arnon  as  the  border  of  ]\Ioab  has 
been  taken  by  Israel.  The  fragment  begins  and  ends  in  the 
middle  of  a  sentence.  If  we  supply  a  suitable  verb,  it  runs 
thus :  "Wherefore  it  is  said  in  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jeho- 
vah, 

We  passed  Vaheb  in  Suphaih, 

And  the  valleys  of  the  Arnon, 

And    the  slope   of  the  valleys 

That  inclineth  toward  the  dwelling  of  Ar, 

And  leaneth  upon  the  border  of  Moab",  vs.  14,  15- 

We  have  here  the  clear  statement  of  a  quotation  from  a 
"book"  (Hebrew  sepher),  and  unless  the  word  has  a  meaning 


"  It  was  shown  above  (chapters  six  and  eight)  that  inscriptions  in  the  archaic 
Hebrew  script,  such  as  those  of  Siloam,  Samaria,  Jeroboam,  the  Gezer  Calander 
Tablet  and  others,  take  us  back  to  about  900  B.  C.,  and  warrant  the  inference 
that  this  script  had  long  been  in  use.     So,  too,  of  literature  in  the  special  sense. 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE.  225 

different  from  the  uniform  usage  of  the  Old  Testament,  it 
denotes  a  composition  in  written,  and  not  merely  in  oral  form. 
The  date  of  this  book  will  be  considered  later. 

2.  The  second  poetical  quotation,  Num.  21  :  17,  18,  is  the 
so-called  ''Song  of  the  Well" : 

"Spring  up,   O   Well;   sing  ye   unto  it; 
The  well,  which  the  princes  digged, 
Which  the  nobles  of  the  people  delved, 
With  the  sceptre  and  with  their  staves." 

Moses  at  the  command  of  Jehovah  collects  the  people  and 
gives  direction  for  the  digging  of  the  well.  ''The  seeking  of 
the  precious  water  by  rude  art  in  a  thirsty  valley  kindles  the 
mind  of  some  poet  of  the  people.  And  his  song  is  spirited,  with 
ample  recognition  of  the  zeal  of  the  princes,  who  themselves 
take  part  in  the  labor.  While  they  dig  he  chants,  and  the  peo- 
ple join  in  the  song  till  the  words  are  fixed  in  their  memory, 
so  as  to  become  part  of  the  traditions  of  Israel"  (R.  A.  Wat- 
son in  Expositor's  Bible). 

3.  The  third  poetical  citation.  Num.  21  :  27-30,  begins : 
^'Wherefore  they  that  speak  in  proverbs  say : 

Come  ye  to  Heshbon; 

Let  the  city  of  Sihon  be  built  and  established : 

For  a  fire  is  gone  out  of  Heshbon, 

A  flame  from  the  city  of  Sihon  : 

It  has  devoured  Ar  and  Moab, 

The  lords  of  the  high  places  of  the  Arnon,  etc." 

Since  the  introductory  words,  'al-ken  yomeru,  are  the  same 
as  in  v.  14  (except  that  the  verb  is  naturally  in  the  plural),  it 
may  be  inferred  that  the  quotation  was  made  by  the  same  writer 
from  the  same  source.  The  words,  "they  that  speak  in  prov- 
erbs" (in  the  Hebrew,  one  word,  a  participial  noun)  may 
refer  to  the  above  "Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah",  to  a  dif- 
ferent book,  or  even  to  a  song  handed  down  orally.'*^     Driver 


*^  The  persons  who  recited  the  poem  are  called  meshalim  (v.  27),  from  a 
verb  meaning  to  utter  a  tnashal.  A  mashal  may  be  either  a  parable,  as  in  the 
American  Revision  of  Ps.  49:  4  (Hebrew  v.  5)  and  78:  2;  a  satiric  hymn,  Micah 
2:  4;  Hab.  2:  6;  a  maxim,  Prov.  i:  i,  6;  or  even  a  prophecy  in  verse,  as  the 
parables  of  Balaam,  Num.  23:  7,  18;  24:  3.  The  second  of  these  meanings  seems 
to  suit  best  here.  The  meshalim  are  Israelites.  The  words,  "let  the  city  of 
Sihon  be  built  and  established,"  imply  that  it  was  destroyed.  Satirically  the  Is- 
raelites call  on  the  vanquished  Amorites  to  rebuild  the  city  if  they  are  able.  The 
justification  of  the  triumphal  song  is  found  in  v.  28:  "a  fire  is  gone  out  of  Hesh- 
bon," etc.  The  view  that  the  poem  is  a  satiric  ode  is  held  by  Ewald,  Keil,  Sayce, 
Dillmann.  Others,  as  Stade  and  E.  Meyer,  claim  that  the  poem  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Amorites,  but  is  a  triumphal  ode  celebrating  a  victory  over  Moab  at 
a  much  later  date.  In  any  event,  the  Mashalim  were  an  order  of  long  standing  in 
Israel. 

IS 


226  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

and  critics  generally  regard  the  three  fragments  as  part  of  one 
poem.  Kautzsch  thinks  it  probable  that  the  "Song  of  the  Well" 
and  other  poems,  as  Ex.  15:  1-18,  21,  were  taken  from  this 
''Book" :  "All  these  fragments  point  to  a  collection  of  songs 
for  the  glorification  of  the  brave  deeds  of  the  people,  and  espe- 
cially of  Jehovah  as  the  leader  and  the  God  of  Battles" 
(Abriss,  etc.). 

That  which  concerns  us  especially  in  this  connection  is  the  early 
date  of  this  "Book"  and  the  still  earlier  date  of  the  poems  preserved 
in  it.  Some,  as  Gray,  hold  that  the  book  was  a  collection  of  ancient  popu- 
lar songs  that  had  been  handed  down  orally  till  the  fuller  establishment 
of  a  national  life  brought  with  it  a  period  of  Hterary  activity  (Commen- 
tary, p.,  285).  Fuerst  and  the  older  critics  place  it  in  the  Mosaic  period; 
Dillmann  in  that  of  David  and  Solomon ;  Stade  in  the  time  of  Omri ; 
Kuenen  under  Jehoshaphat;  E.  Meyer  850;  Driver  prior  to  900.  Hol- 
zinger,  reviewing  the  recent  literature,  concludes :  "Ueber  Vermutun- 
gen  kommt  man  da  nicht  hinaus"  (Einleitung,  Hexateuch,  p.,  230). 
Dillmann  argues :  "Since  the  book  is  cited  for  the  Moses-Joshua  period, 
and  since  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  later  writers  (J  and  E)  would 
quote  for  their  readers  very  late  songs  as  witnesses  of  that  remote  per- 
iod, the  Wars  of  Jehovah  must  mean  the  old  conflicts  for  the  pos- 
session of  the  land ;  and'  the  composition  of  the  book  or  the  collection 
of  the  songs  must  be  placed  not  later  and  probably  earlier  than  the 
David-Solomon  period,  when  the  recollections  were  still  fresh  in  the 
memory.  The  age  of  Moses  is  out  of  the  question"  (Numeri,  Deut. 
u.   Jos.,    123). 

The  connection  clearly  shows  that  at  an  early  period  a  guild  of 
men  existed  not  unlike  the  Greek  rhapsodists,  who  recited  before  the 
people  the  old  songs  and  poems  of  the  nation.*^  We  shall  not  err  much 
either  way,  if  we  regard  the  nucleus  of  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jeho- 
vah as  originating  shortly  after  the  events  celebrated  and  as  com- 
mitted to  writing  already  in  the  period  of  the  Judges.  Whatever  the 
date  of  composition,  it  is  clear  that  written  sources  existed  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Judges.** 

2.    THE    BOOK    OF   JASHAR. 

I.  At  the  battle  of  Gibeon,  Joshua  said: 

"Sun,   stand  thou   still   upon   Gibeon; 

And   thou.   Moon,   in  the  valley  of  Aijalon. 

And  the  sun  stood  still  and  the  moon  stayed 

Until  the  nation  had  avenged  themselves  of  their  enemies. 


*»  It  is  easy  to  imagine  how  these  reciters  went  about  in  Israel  and,  especially 
in  time  of  war,  by  reciting  poems  like  the  present  (compare  Is.  4:  4;  Hab.  2:  6) 
and  thus  recalling  former  victories,  stimulated  and  encouraged  the  people  (Judges 
5:  31),  But  possibly  the  repertoire  of  these  ballad-singers  was  not  confined  to 
odes  of  war  and  victory  (Gray,  Numbers,   p.,  299). 

"  Any  one  caring  to  see  a  good  example  of  the  self-refutation  of  a  certain 
type  of  textual  and  literary  criticism  will  find  it  in  T.  K.  Cheyne's  article  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  col.  5271,  where  the  absurd  Jerahmeel  hypothesis  is  brought 
to  bear  on  this  subject,  and  the  contention  put  forth  that  there  was  probably  no 
Sepher  Milhamoth  at  all,  but  rather  a  Sepher  Yerahmehel,  i,  e.,  "the  book,  or  list, 
of  Jerahmeel,"  "a  geographical  survey"! 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE. 


22-] 


Is  not  this  written  in  the  Book  of  Jashar?"  (Jo^h  lo- 
12-13). 

What  was  the  character  and  the  date  of  this  Book?  ''It 
was  probably  a  collection,  rhythmical  in  form,  and  poetical  in 
diction,  of  various  pieces  celebrating  the  heroes  of  the  Hebrew 
nation,  and  their  achievements.  .  .  .  The  book  was  naturally 
compiled  by  degrees,  and  gradually  any  ode  or  song  deemed 
worthy  of  preservation  added  to  it"  (Maclear,  Cambridge  Bi- 
ble, p.,  89).  Since  the  word  hayyashar  means  the  "Righteous 
One,"  the  book  may  have  been  a  record  of  the  deeds  of  righte- 
ous men.'*^  It  will  be  observed  that  the  verses  i-ii,^and 
16-27  read  continuously,  while  12-15  break  into  the  narrative 
and  indicate  an  insertion.  Whether  the  author  of  chapter  ten, 
or  another,  incorporated  the  matter  relating  to  the  standing  still 
of  the  sun,  the  citation  of  the  Book  of  Jashar  proves  that 
sources  and  documents  were  preserved  in  that  early  period  and 
were  available  for  literary  purposes. 

2.  The  second  and  only  other  reference  to  this  book  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  is  in  2  Sam.  i:  17,  18:  ''And  David  lamented 
with  this  lamentation  over  Saul  and  over  Jonathan  his  son  ( and 
he  bade  them  teach  the  children  of  Judah  the  song  of  the  bow ; 
behold  it  is  written  in  the  Book  of  Jashar)".  In  v.  18  the 
Hebrew  text,  which  has  no  word  for  "the  song  of",  might  be 
translated  literally,  "teach  the  children  of  Israel  the  bow".  But 
^yhat  can  this  mean?  The  text  as  it  stands  is  in  some  confu- 
sion, for  this  lamentation  of  v.  17,  would  seem  to  refer  to  the 
dirge  in  vs.  19-27.  How  then  can  "the  bow",  which  is  said  to 
be  written  in  the  Book  of  Jashar,  mean  the  following  dirge  ?*^ 
Was  the  dirge  known  both  as  "a  lamentation"  and  as  "the  song 
of  the  Bow"?  It  is  immaterial  here  how  these  questions  are 
answered;  the  fact  remains  that  in  this  comparatively  early 
straturn  of  the  Old  Testament  we  have  a  distinct  reference  to 
an  ancient  book  doubtless  preserved  in  the  Hebrew  archives 
and  available  for  reference.     According  to  Driver,  "it  was  not 

r.  "  ?^^j  quotation  here  does  not  prove  that  the  Book  of  Joshua  was  composed 
after  the  date  of  the  reference  in  2  Sam.  i :  18  (David's  time),  and  as  little  is 
the  reference  there  a  proof  that  the  first  part  of  the  book  was  not  extant  in  the 
pre-Uavidic  period.  Josephus  testifies  that  books  other  than  the  canonical  were 
laid   up   in  the  Temple    (Antiquities,  V:    i,    17). 

_  «  All  the  later  critics,  as  Ewald,  G.  A.  Smith,  Perles,  Wellhausen,  Holzinger, 
Driver  and  II.  P.  Smith  have  discussed  the  passage  and  attempted  a  restoration  of 
the  text.  Driver  states  the  difficulties,  but  offers  no  solution  (Notes  on  Sam- 
uel). Wellhausen  is  equally  unsatisfactory  (Buecher  Samuelis).  H.  P.  Smith 
says:  "We  can  do  nothing  with  the  text  as  it  stands,  and  the  efforts  of  all  the 
commentators  only  bring  the  difficulty  more  clearly  into  relief"  (Commentary  on 
Books   of   Samuel,    259). 


228  ANTIQUITY  OF    HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

compiled  before  the  time  of  David,  though  the  nucleus  of  the 
collection  may  obviously  have  been  formed  earlier"  (Literature, 
p.,  114).     So  also  Reuss. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Book  of  Jashar  is  referred  to  in  another 
passage.  In  closing  the  description  of  Solomon's  dedication  of  the  Tem- 
ple, the  Septuagint  in  i  Kings  8:  53,  adds:  "Is  not  this  written  in  the 
Book  of  the  Song?"  Since  the  Hebrew  for  "the  Righteous"  is  hay- 
yashar  and  for  "the  Song"  hashshir,  and  since  in  the  absence  of  the 
vowel-points  in  the  Hebrew  as  originally  \yritten,  a  confusion  could 
easily  occur,  it  is  probable  that  the  Septuagint  translators  mistook  the 
one  for  the  other.  The  Syriac  similarly  confounds  the  two  words, 
rendering  Josh.  10:  13  "book  of  hymns,  or  praises",  and  2  Sam.  i:  18, 
"book  of  Ashir".  It  is  not  likely  that  the  Septuagint  added  the  clause 
without  warrant.  It  would  seem  then  that  the  Book  of  Jashar  con- 
tained an  account  of  the  foundation  of  the  Temple  and  was  quoted 
by  name  in  the  Hebrew  text  used  by  the  translators  of  the  Book  of 
Kings  into   Greek. 

Various  opinions  have  been  entertained  as  to  the  extent  of  this  lost 
book.  Talmudists,  Church  Fathers,  Midieval  rabbis  wrestled  in  vain 
with  the  problem ;  perhaps  all  would  have  assented  to  the  conclusion 
of  Theodoret  "that  the  citations  prove  that  other  documents  written 
by  the  prophets  were  made  use  of  in  the  composition  of  the  historical 
books."  Current  criticism  may  be  summed  up  in  the  language  of  W. 
H.  Bennett :  "The  data  are  too  scanty  and  obscure  to  determine  either 
the  character  of  the  book  or  the  meaning  of  its  title.  As  the  passages 
quoted  are  ancient  poems  on  great  events,  especially  battles,  prob- 
ably the  book  was  a  collection  of  such  poems"  (Hast.  Die.  Bible). 
At  all  events,  the  references  show  that  already  at  an  early  period,  books 
were  in  process  of  formation  and  were  referred  to  as  sources  of  further 
information.*^ 

3.  jotham's  parable. 

Jotham's  parable  of  the  trees  anointing  a  king,  Jud.  9 :  1-21, 
must  be  regarded  as  a  pre-Davidic  piece  of  writing  both  on 
internal  grounds  and  the  recognized  principles  of  literary  criti- 
cism. The  whole  chapter,  as  Driver  and  nearly  all  critics  ad- 
mit, stands  in  a  very  ancient  stratum.  ''Chapter  nine,"  says 
Oettli,  "contains  traces  of  a  highly  archaic  character,  a  section 
rich  in  names,  characteristic  features  and  specific  data,  taken 
from  a  special  source,  which  chronologically  is  not  far  re- 
moved  from  the  events  narrated.     The  moral   judgments  in 


*^  The  Sepher  hayyashar  has  given  rise  to  a  curious  literature.  The  Targum 
saw  in  it  "the  book  of  the  law";  and  the  rabbis  variously  understood  it  as  refer- 
ring to  Genesis,  Deuteronomy,  Judges,  and  even  the  Minor  Prophets.  The  opin- 
ion of  Gershom  that  it  was  one  of  the  books  that  perished  in  the  Babylonian  Cap- 
tivity was  shared  by  Hottinger  and  other  writers.  In  1854  there  appeared  in 
London  an  ambitious  work  by  Dr.  Donaldson,  who  in  the  attempt  at  reconstruc- 
tion included  in  it  a  considerable  part  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  early  historical 
books.  There  are  also  extant  several  rabbinical  books  with  the  same  title.  An 
interesting  account  of  the  speculations  and  imitations  called  forth  by  this  lost 
work  is  found  in  Literary  Remains  of  Emanuel  Deutsch,  pp.,  440 — 8. 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE.  229 

VS.  24,  56,^  57,  grow  so  naturally  out  of  the  history  itself  and 
are  so  entirely  different  from  the  analogous  passages  of  the 
religious-pragmatic  scheme,  that  we  ascribe  them,  not  to  the 
late  redactor,  but  to  the  original  author  of  chapter  nine.  The 
compromising  estimate  of  the  kingdom  in  Jotham's  fable  and 
in  the  description  of  Abimelech,  forbids  our  assigning  the 
composition  to  the  Saul-David  period"  (Kommentar).^^  An- 
other critic  says :  "The  artistic  form  of  the  fable  is  of  such  a 
high  character  and  is  permeated  by  such  inimitable  sarcasm, 
that  the  impression  of  the  early  date  of  the  composition  is  un- 
avoidable". The  stylistic  and  historical  data  indicate  that  the 
parable  was  composed  and  written  out  not  long  after,  and  per- 
haps even  contemporaneously  with  the  episode,  i.  e.  about 
1 120  B.  C. 

4.  WRITING  IN  Gideon's  age. 

Judges  8 :  14  contains  an  incidental  but  all  the  more  valu- 
able proof  that  a  youth  taken  at  random  was  able  to  write  down 
at  the  request  of  Gideon  the  names  of  the  princes  and  elders  of 
Succoth.*^  *'He  caught  a  young  man  of  the  men  of  Succoth 
and  inquired  of  him ;  and  he  described  [wrote  down]  for  him 
the  princes  of  Succoth,  and  the  elders  thereof,  seventy  and 
seven  men"  (vs.  14).  According  to  Kautzsch,  "this  incident 
warrants  the  inference  of  a  general  spread  of  the  art  of  writ- 
ing among  the  common  people  and  enables  us  to  conclude  that 
the  rise  of  real  literature  may  not  be  placed  later  than  the  sec- 
ond half  of  the  period  of  the  Judges.  The  possibility  that 
already  at  that  time,  perhaps  at  ancient  sanctuaries,  as  Shiloh 
and  Bethel,  and  in  the  circle  of  an  hereditary  priesthood,  the 
writing  down  of  old  hymns  and  of  the  history  of  the  sanctuary, 
was  begun,  must  be  admitted"  (Ahriss,  p.,  9), 

This  admission  of  the  use  of  writing  in  the  time  of  Gideon 
in  the  Phoenician  script,  not  in  the  cuneiform,  involves  some  far- 
reaching  consequences,  especially  when  taken  in  connection  with 
the  fact  that  the  youth  recounted  to  Gideon  the  sarim  (princes) 
and  the  zequanim  (elders)  of  Succoth,  which  implies  a  stable, 

**  Prof.  G.  F.  Moore,  with  more  reserve,  says:  "It  is  noteworthy  that  these 
words  (vs.  56)  are  uttered,  not,  as  in  so  many  similar  cases,  by  a  nameless 
prophet,  or  by  an  angel,  but  by  the  man  from  whose  lips  they  come  with  the  most 
dramatic  fitness.  In  this  also  we  may  perhaps  see  evidence  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  whole   story"    (Judges,   p.,   246). 

*»  Both  the  Authorized  Version  and  the  Am.  Rev.  are  probably  inaccurate 
here  in  the  use  of  "described"  rather  than  "wrote  down",  which  by  the  general 
consensus  of  scholars  is  the  meaning  of  kathabh  in  this  connection.  Moore  says: 
"There  is  as  little  reason  to  depart  from  the  usual  meaning  of  the  verb  as  there 
is  to  infer  from  it  that  the  Israelites  of  Gideon's  time  could  all  read  and  write". 


230  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

well-organized  government.  If  society  was  thus  comparatively 
far  advanced  among  the  inferior  races  of  Palestine,  we  may 
suppose  that  the  conquering  Israelites  had  a  like  knowledge  of 
arts  and  letters.  This  passage,  whose  plain  meaning  and  veri- 
similitude cannot  be  invalidated  by  any  special  pleading  as  to 
the  'lateness"  of  the  documents  (the  ever  ready  Grafian  re- 
fuge), shows  not  only  that  society  and  government  were  in  a 
comparatively  advanced  stage,  but  that  writing  must  have  been 
taught  either  at  home  or  in  the  schools  of  Palestine. 

This  well-attested  incident  proves  as  conclusively  as  most 
facts  of  ancient  history  can  be  proved  that  writing  was  known 
at  Succoth  and  presumably  among  the  Hebrews.  How  could 
Gideon  have  read  the  list  even  when  written  unless  conversant 
with  the  script?  If  Gideon  had  acquired  the  art,  why  not 
others  of  his  people?  The  episode  proves  further  that  tablets, 
stylus  and  writing-material  were  ever  at  hand,  even  in  a  mil- 
itary foray,  and  that  the  Israelites  had  at  command  all  the 
accessories  of  recording  more  or  less  lengthy  documents  and 
narratives. 

We  need  not  expect  that  literature  of  the  style  and  polish 
of  the  Periclean  age  flourished  in  that  somewhat  primitive  state 
of  society ;  nor  did  it  in  fact  so  flourish  in  the  Hammurabi  and 
Amarna  periods,  if  by  literature  we  mean  a  magnificent  diction 
and  artistically  rounded  sentences.  But  if  it  be  allowed  that 
the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  annals  of  the  millennium  preceding 
Gideon  may  in  a  broad  sense  be  denominated  literature,  then 
assuredly  it  may  be  held  that  a  Gideon  and  the  ancient  Israelite 
scribes  possessed  in  no  less  degree  the  skill,  acumen  and  re- 
sources of  language  to  compose  not  merely  simple  narratives, 
but  even  longer  poetical  and  historical  pieces. 

5.  Deborah's  triumphal  ode. 

We  examine  the  remarkable  poem  known  as  Deborah's 
Song  or  Triumphal  Ode,  Judges  5:  1-31,  with  the  view  of 
evaluating  the  proof  which  it  supplies  regarding  early  Hebrew 
literature.  All  competent  judges  admit  that  it  is  written  in 
classic  Hebrew  and  implies  a  long  period  of  literary  prac- 
tice among  the  Hebrews.  Critics  generally,  even  the  more 
radical,  allow  that  the  author  was  a  contemporary  of  the 
events  described.  Thus  Kuenen :  "Form  and  contents  alike 
prove  that  it  is  rightly  ascribed  to  a  contemporary".  Stade: 
"Even  though  the  lineage  of  Deborah  is  uncertain,  the  Song  in 
any  event  dates  from  a  contemporary".     Wellhausen :    "The 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE.  23 1 

Song  of  Deborah,  an  unquestionably  authentic  document,  goes 
back  almost  to  the  Mosaic  age"  (Is.  u.  Jued.  Gesch.,  ii).'^° 

Moore  says :  "The  Song  is  unsurpassed  in  Hebrew  litera- 
ture in  all  the  great  qualities  of  poetry,  and  holds  a  high  place 
among  Triumphal  odes  in  the  literature  of  the  world.  It  is  a 
work  of  genius,  and  therefore  of  that  highest  art  which  is  not 
studied  and  artificial,  but  spontaneous  and  inevitable.  It  shows 
a  development  and  command  of  resources  of  the  language  for 
ends  of  poetical  expression  which  shows  that  poetry  had  long 
been  cultivated  among  the  Hebrews"  (op.  cit.,  135).^^  The 
Harvard  professor  concedes  practically  all  that  we  ask :  "a  work 
of  genius",  "unsurpassed  in  Hebrew  literature",  "poetry  long 
cultivated  among  the  Hebrews".  Orelli  says  :  "That  the  Song 
originated  in  the  period  which  it  describes  and  is  accordingly 
one  of  the  oldest  and  best  preserved  monuments  of  Israelite 
literature,  is  quite  generally  admitted"  (Kom.,  246).  The  in- 
ternal character  of  the  poem  and  the  concessions  of  critics  who 
with  few  exceptions  belong  to  the  negative  school  furnish  an 
impregnable  argument  that  the  Song  was  composed  in  the  He- 
brew language  and  script  and  preserved  intact  to  later  times. ^^ 

The  age  of  Deborah  according  to  the  chronology  adopted 
here  is  about  11 50  B.  C. ;  it  may  be  a  half  century  earlier  or 
later.  In  any  event  this  writing,  and  be  it  understood,  writing 
in  the  sense  of  literature  as  classic  and  finished  as  any  in  the 
Old  Testament,  goes  back  very  nearly  to  the  Mosaic  age,  as 
Wellhausen  allows.  If  our  purpose  were  to  multiply  words, 
it  would  be  natural  to  draw  inferences  as  to  the  possibility  and 
probability  that  Hebrews  of  that  and  the  preceding  age  rose  on 


"  Koenig  says:  "The  Song  is  not  merely  according  to  the  general  analogy, 
that  poetical  glorifications  of  great  events  are  older  than  their  records  in  prose, 
but  also  according  to  the  wealth  of  detail,  a  direct  echo  of  the  historical  situation 
therein  described,  namely  the  decisive  victory  over  the  Northern  Canaanites 
(Einl.,  254).  It  follows  that  other  ancient  sources  are  probably  imbedded  in 
the  book. 

w  Prof.  Moore  seeks  to  break  the  force  of  his  admissions  by  the  adoption  of 
the  unproved  Wellhausen-Stade  hypothesis  that  since  "early  poetry  was  not  pre- 
served in  books,  but  in  the  hearts  of  men",  the  Song  "itself  was  thus  perpetuated 
for  generations".  We  have  seen  that  this  assumption  of  "oral  perpetuation  is 
contrary  to   the   facts   and   probabilities. 

"  Some  scholars,  appealing  to  the  title  and  v.  7,  regard  Deborah  as  the 
author.  Against  this  it  may  be  said  that  the  title  is  possibly  of  later  date,  and 
that  some  of  the  ancient  versions  have  the  verbs  of  v.  7  in  ths  third  person  and 
not  in  the  first,  as  in  the  Hebrew.  But  since,  as  a  rule,  the  Massoretic  text 
stands,  unless  overwhelming  evidence  supports  the  versions,  and  since,  further, 
vs  12,  IS,  24,  and  30  accord  with  the  received  text,  the  common  view  of  the 
Deborah  authorship  is  well  sustained.  Some  critics,  however,  as  Kuenen,  Reuss, 
Kittel,  etc,  hold  that  Deborah  is  not  the  author.  Wellhausen  says:  "Barek  fuerte 
die  Israeliten  an;  Deborah  sang  ihnen  das  Lied"  (Gech.  38).  Whether  or  not 
Deborah  is  the  author  is  immaterial  for  our  purpose.  Its  essential  contemporane- 
ousness with  the  events   celebrated  is  the  chief  point  here. 


232  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

other  occasions  to  similar  flights  of  literary  excellence.  Or, 
are  we  to  infer,  either  that  they  exhausted  their  resources  on 
this  occasion,  or  that  no  other  themes  worthy  of  literary  treat- 
ment presented  themselves?  So  a  large  number  of  literary 
critics  would  have  us  believe.  If  it  be  allowed  that  some  un- 
known Hebrew  author  of  the  twelfth  pre-Christian  century 
conceived  and  executed  such  a  magnificent  piece  of  word-paint- 
ing as  the  fifth  of  Judges,  other  writers  of  that  and  the  preced- 
ing age  could  have  produced,  so  far  as  literary  qualifications 
go,  the  documents  underlying  the  Hexateuch  and  the  book  of 
Judges. 

6.    THE   marshal's    STAFF. 

Some  recent  writers,  as  Sayce,  hold  that  Deborah's  Ode 
contains  a  clear  proof  of  Hebrew  writing.  The  latter  part  of 
V.  14  reads  in  the  American  Revision :  "Out  of  Machir  came 
down  governors,  and  out  of  Zebulun  they  that  handle  the  mar- 
shal's staff".  The  Authorized  Version  substitutes  ''lawgivers" 
and  ''staff  of  the  scribe"  for  "governors"  and  "marshal's 
staff",  respectively.  All  turns  here  on  the  meaning  of  several 
Hebrew  words.  Sayce's  argument  is  substantially  as  follows. 
The  Hebrew  word  rendered  "lawgiver"  is  mkhoqeq,  a  partici- 
ple meaning  to  engrave.  In  Ezek.  23  :  14  the  words  m'khuqqeh 
and  khuquqim  are  used  of  sculptures  engraved  on  the  stuccoed 
walls  of  the  Chaldean  palaces  and  then  marked  in  red.  In 
Is.  49:  16  the  verb  Khaqah  denotes  tattooing  of  letters  in  the 
flesh,  and  in  Ezek.  4 :  i  the  same  verb  describes  the  engraving 
of  the  plan  of  Jerusalem  on  a  clay  tablet.  In  Is.  10:  i,  the 
Khoq'qim  khiqqe'aven,  "engravers  of  unrighteous  decrees", 
are  associated  with  "the  writers  of  perverseness".  Thus  the 
mkhoqeq  and  the  scribe  performed  a  similar  work,  the  for- 
mer holding  a  higher  place,  for  he  made  the  law,  while  the  lat- 
ter merely  recorded  it.  The  scribe  might  be  content  with 
papyrus  and  parchment,  but  the  statutes  of  the  lawgiver  needed 
to  be  engraved  on  durable  material,  like  wood  or  metal. 

The  words  rendered  "the  marshal's  staff",  or  "the  staff 
of  the  scribe"  are  shebhet  sopher.  All  depends  on  the  force 
of  shebhet,  which  the  lexicons  define,  as  a  tree,  a  rod,  or  staff. 
In  Gen.  49 :  10  khoqeq  clearly  means  lawgiver,  but  shebhet  in 
the  same  verse  as  clearly  means  scepter.  Unless  the  passage 
under  review  form  an  exception,  it  would  seem  that  the  Old 
Testament  furnishes  no  well-attested  example  in  which  the 
word  means  stylus  or  pen  of  a  scribe ;   but  such  a  use  was  en- 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE. 


233 


tirely  natural,  since  the  word  is  etymologically  the  same  as  the 
Assyrian  shahhitu,  a  stylus.  Sayce  argues  cogently  that  here 
the  term  must  mean  'pen  of  the  writer'.  "The  word  sopher, 
scribe,  defines  the  word  shehhet,  rod,  with  which  it  is  conjoined' 
What  is  meant  by  the  'rod  of  the  scribe'  is  made  clear  by  the 
Assyrian  monuments.  It  was  the  stylus  of  wood  or  metal  with 
the  help  of  which  the  clay  tablet  was  engraved  or  the  papyrus 
inscribed  with  characters.  The  scribe  who  wielded  it  was  the 
associate  of  the  lawgiver"  (High.  Crit.,  etc.,  p.,  56)." 

7.    KIRIATH-SEPHER    OR    BOOK-TOWN. 

Another  proof  that  writing  was  known  in  Palestine  at  an 
early  date,  certainly  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  is  supplied  from  the 
meaning  of  Kiriath-sepher  in  Josh.  15:  15,  16  and  Judges  i: 
II,  12.  Kiriath  unquestionably  means  town  or  city,  as  shown 
by  Is.  1 :  21 ,  26 ;  Hos.  6:8;  Jer.  4 :  26.  Sepher  clearly  means 
book  in  this  connection;  hence  Book-Town.  In  Josh.  15:  15, 
49;  Jud.  i:  II,  12  the  Sept.  rendering  is  "city  of  letters"! 
Still  further  strengthening  the  claim  of  the  antiquity  of  Kiriath- 
Sepher  as  a  seat  of  learning  is  the  explanatory  clause :  "Now 
the  name  of  Debir  beforetime  was  Kiriath-Sepher"  (Josh.  15: 
15;  Jud.  i:  11).  That  the  writer  considered  it  necessary  to 
explain  that  Debir  was  formerly  known  as  Kiriath-Sepher  im- 
plies the  high  antiquity  of  the  town.  In  i  K.  6 :  5  the  word 
Debir  is  simply  transcribed  in  the  Sept.,  but  rendered  Oraculum 
in  the  Vulgate  and  Oracle  in  the  Authorized  and  American  ver- 
sions.^* Koenig  says :  "In  any  event  the  existence  of  a  Cana- 
anite  Book-Town  in  Southern  Palestine,  Josh.  15:  15,  has 
since  the  recent  discoveries  lost  much  of  its  historically  enig- 
matic character,  and  one  will  admit  more  readily  than  hereto- 
fore that  Judah's  signet,  Gen.  38:  18,  25,  was  supplied  with 
letters"  (Einl,  p.,  178). 

The  Amarna  Letters  furnish  incontestable  evidence  that 

"  Prof.  G.  A  Barton  holds  that  the  common  interpretation,  'staff  of  the 
scribe,  IS  correct  (Bth  World,  V,  127).  Moore  renders  sopher  by  "muster-mas- 
ter ,  an  officer  who  m  the  later  military  organization  "had  charge  of  the  enume- 
ration and  enrollment  of  the  troops".  Moore  renders  the  whole  phrase,  "the 
muster-master  s  staff".  Assuming  that  the  muster-master  would  make  a  list  of 
the  troops,  some  kind  of  writing  is  implied. 

.  "  "It  meant  the  inner  shrine  of  the  temple,  the  Holy  of  Holies,  where  the 
deity  spoke  to  his  worshippers.  It  was  essentially  a  place  of  speaking,  wherein 
the  oracles  of  the  god  were  delivered  to  his  priests.  It  was  thus  a  fitting  spot  for 
the  site  of  a  great  library"  (Sayce,  op.  cit.,  p.,  55).  Moore  regards  with  sus- 
picion all  such  attempts  at  identification.  "So  tempting  a  name  could  not  fail  to 
give  rise  to  a  multitude  of  speculations".  Moore,  however,  has  nothing  more 
satisfactory  to  offer.  It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  W.  Max  Mueller  recognizes 
Kiriath-Sepher  in  a  phonogram  meaning  "house  of  the  scribe"  in  Papyrus  Ana- 
stasi  I  (Asien  u.  Europa,    174). 


234  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

even  small  towns  in  Palestine  had  scribes  who  wrote  in  the 
cuneiform  and  carried  on  an  extensive  correspondence  with  the 
Egyptian  court.  The  existence  of  such  a  Hterary  center  as 
Kiriath-Sepher  is  therefore  entirely  in  harmony  with  what 
might  be  expected.  But  the  existence  of  such  a  center  some 
forty  miles  from  Jerusalem  implies  that  at  an  early  date  the 
Hebrews  came  under  its  influence  and  possibly  had  access  to  its 
literary  treasures.^^ 

8.  WRITING  IN  Joshua's  time. 

Tracing  the  evidence  of  written  records  further  and  fur- 
ther back,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  the  age  of  Joshua  is 
represented  in  the  Bible  as  one  of  considerable  literary  activity. 

(i).  Copying   of   the  Lazv. 

In  Josh.  8 :  32  we  read :  "He  wrote  there  upon  the  stones 
...  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses,  etc.,''  'This  has  been  vari- 
ously interpreted  as  meaning  (a)  the  whole  law;  (b)  the  Dec- 
alogue; (c)  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy;  and  (d)  the  Com- 
mandments proper,  the  statutes  and  rights  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch".  It  matters  little  here  in  what  sense  the  word 
"law"  is  to  be  understood;  the  fact  remains  that  writing  for 
literary  purposes  is  clearly  implied. ^°  The  law  vv^as  probably 
"written  upon  or  in  plaster  with  which  these  pillars  v/ere 
coated.  This  could  easily  be  done  ;  and  such  writing  was  com- 
mon in  ancient  times.  I  have  seen  numerous  specimxens  of  it 
certainly  more  than  two  thousand  years  old,  and  still  as  distinct 
as  when  they  were  first  inscribed  on  the  plaster"  (Thomson, 
Land  and  Book). 

The  account,  though  brief,  fits  in  vv^ell  with  the  situation. 
The  author  in  speaking  of  the  law  "written  upon  stones  (the 
stones  covered  with  gypsum)  need  express  himself  very  briefly 
because  the  subject  was  fully  presented  in  Deut.  27,  to  which 
he  had  just  referred"  (Dillmann).'^^ 

"  It  is  possible  that  the  cuneiform  records  preserved  in  Kiriath-Sepher, 
Shecheni,  Bethel,  etc.,  and  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  Israelites  at  the  con- 
quest, were  in  some  cases  the  sources  of  the  Biblical  narratives.  See,  further, 
chap.  XIII. 

"  The  Graf-ivent-Smith  school  would  break  the  force  of  the  passage  by  as- 
signing its  insertion  to  the  ever  ready  Deuteronomic  editor,  but  according  to  the 
same  school,  this  figure-head  stupidly  misplaced  the  passage.  "But",  says  Dill- 
mann,  "an  interpolator  would  certainly  have  sought  a  more  suitable  place  for  the 
inserted  passage"  (Josh.,  p.,  478).  If  the  section  8:  30-35  goes  back  to  E,  it  is 
quite  ancient,  and  as  E  rested  on  earlier  sources,  we  reach  the  same  date  approx- 
imately  as  above. 

^^  The  investigation  of  the  Egyptian  monuments  has  shown  that  it  was  an 
ancient  Egyptian  custom  "first  to  plaster  the  stone  walls  of  buildings,  and  also 
monumental  stones  that  were  to  be  painted  with  figures  and  hieroglyphics,  wi^ 
a  plaster   of  lime  and  gypsum,   into   which  the  figures  were   worked;     thus   it   was 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE.  235 

(2).   Distribution   of  the   Territory. 

The  account  in  Josh.  i8  and  19  of  the  distribution  of  the 
unoccupied  territory  to  the  seven  tribes  which  had  not  received 
their  allotment  is  a  proof  at  once  of  the  extensive  use  of  writing 
and  of  the  advanced  culture  among  the  Hebrews  of  that  day. 
If  the  territory  was  to  be  distributed  equitably,  it  must  be 
accurately  described.  Hence  Joshua  directs  that  a  commission 
of  21  men,  three  from  each  tribe,  prepare  a  written  description 
of  the  land,  and  report  to  him  at  Shiloh.^^  Joshua  directs  the 
men  as  follows :  "And  they  shall  arise  and  walk  through  the 
land,  and  describe  it  according  to  their  inheritance;  and  they 
shall  come  unto  me.  .  .  .  And  ye  shall  describe  the  land  into 
seven  portions  and  bring  the  description  hither  to  me.  .  .  And 
the  men  went  and  passed  through  the  land,  and  described  it 
by  cities  into  seven  portions  in  a  book;  and  they  came  to  Joshua 
unto  the  camp  at  Shiloh"  (18:  4,  6,  9).  The  author  of  these 
verses  evidently  intended  to  convey  the  impression  that  the  com- 
mission was  to  prepare  a  written  description  of  the  territory  as 
the  basis  of  an  equitable  distribution.  In  order  to  secure  ac- 
curacy, they  were  to  describe  "it  by  cities  in  a  book".^^  The 
report  was  to  be  embodied  in  a  written  form,  says  Dillmann, 
(who  accepts  the  historicity)  in  order  to  prevent  future  strife. 

That  the  commission  is  assumed  to  be  competent  to  make 
such  a  survey  implies  a  somewhat  advanced  stage  of  culture 
and  rufutes  in  a  striking  way  the  assumption  of  the  negative 
critics'  that  at  the  Exodus  the  Israelites  were  an  ignorant 
horde.  "Although  the  survey  was  connected  chiefly  with  a 
general  estimate  of  the  resources  and  characteristics  of  the 
several  districts,  yet  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Israelites 
had  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  art  of  mensuration  in  Egypt, 
where,  on  account  of  the  annual  overflowing  of  the  Nile,  it  had 
been  practised  from  the  earliest  times"  (Maclear,  Cam.  Bible ).^^ 

possible  in  Egypt  to  engrave  on  walls  the  most  extensive  pieces  of  writing.  And 
in  this  manner  Deut.  27:  4-8  must  be  understood,  and  in  this  manner  it  was 
accomplished  by  Joshua". 

^*  Their  duty  was  not  so  much  to  make  an  actual  measurement  as  to  furnish 
information  regarding  the  different  districts,  such  as  the  number  and  character 
of  the   towns,   the  barrenness   or   fertility  of  the  soil,    etc. 

"  The  word  translated  "describe"  in  the  above  passages  is  the  usual  word 
kathabh  "to  write",  and  such  is  unquestionably  its  meaning  here.  According  to 
the  Grafians  the  whole  narrative  is  late  and  a  projection  backward  of  the  ideas 
of  a  later  age.  It  stands,  however,  in  JE,  whose  component  parts  are  early  under 
any  view;  and  thus  it  may  rest  ultimately  on  a  source  coming  down  from  the 
age  of  Joshua.  The  word  rendered  "book"  is  the  usual  Hebrew  word  sepher, 
whose   plain   meaning  cannot   be  evaded  here. 

«°  This  mode  of  assignment  "places  the  conquest  of  Palestine,  even  in  that 
remote  and  barbarous  age,  in  a  favorable  contrast  with  the  arbitrary  caprice,  by 
which  the  lands  of  England  were  granted  away  to  the  Norman  chiefs"  (Stanley, 
Lectures,  I.,  p.,  265). 


236  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

9.   LITERATURE  IN   THE  MOSAIC  AGE. 

The  line  of  argument  in  the  preceding  section  yields  certain 
definite  results.  We  proceeded  from  data  accepted  by  the 
negative  critics  to  conclusions  warranted  by  a  rigid  inductive 
logic.  The  starting-point  was  in  every  instance  some  generally 
accepted  position  of  scientific  criticism.  Others  cogent  argu- 
ments (advanced  by  the  strictly  conservative  or  traditional 
school)  could  have  been  adduced,  but  since  their  validity  might 
be  challenged  on  the  basis  of  the  Grafian  premises,  they  have 
been  omitted.  But  even  so  the  case  is  a  strong  one.  In  the 
David-Solomon  period,  there  originated  certain  writings  of 
David,  Samuel  the  seer,  Nathan  the  prophet,  Gad  the  seer,  the 
Chronicles  of  David's  reign,  and  various  other  records  no  lon- 
ger extant.  In  the  period  of  the  Judges,  there  appeared  the 
first  part  of  "The  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah,"  "The  Book 
of  Jashar",  Jotham's  "Parable",  Deborah's  "Triumphal  Ode", 
Joshua's  Transcript  of  the  Law  and  the  Description  of  the  Un- 
occupied Territory.  Further  proof  of  writing  in  the  Phoeni- 
cian script  is  found  in  the  ability  of  a  youth  of  Succoth  to  write 
and  of  Gideon  to  read  a  list  of  'j'j  names,  also  in  the  reference  to 
the  pen  of  the  scribe  in  Deborah's  Ode  and  in  the  mention  of 
the  Book-Town  (Kiriath-Sepher). 

Here  we  have  an  unbroken  chain  of  examples  of  writing 
and  literature  extending  from  Joshua  to  David.  This  period, 
it  must  be  allowed,  was  not  characterized  by  the  highest  degree 
of  literary  activity;  nor  is  it  so  represented  in  Scripture.  It 
followed  the  Mosaic,  or  creative  period  of  Israelitish  history, 
and  was  partly  an  age  of  decline.  All  classes  alike  were  occu- 
pied in  becoming  firmly  established  in  their  new  home.®^  But 
the  extant  writings  from  this  period  are  sufficiently  numerous 
and  meritorious  to  warrant  the  inference  that  heroes  like  Josh- 
ua, Deborah,  Jephthah,  Samuel  and  others,  would  not  merely 
rise  in  defence  of  the  Jehovah-religion,  but  also  prepare  the 
essentials  of  an  historical  record;  and  we  may  be  sure  that 
the  priests  at  Shiloh,  Bethel  and  other  sanctuaries  (with  the 
native  pride  of  their  guild)  would  transmit  various  written 
records.  If,  as  admitted  by  all  critics,  writing  was  well-known 
and  a  high  order  of  literature  produced  in  Israel  in  Deborah's 
time,  it  is  safe  to  conclude  (even  apart  from  other  proofs)  that 

•^  Their  condition  was  similar  to  that  of  the  American  colonies  before  the 
Revolution.  The  latter,  even  while  fighting  the  Indians,  produced  a  very  con- 
•iderable  body  of  respectable  literature.  So,  too,  the  leading  spirits  in  the  period 
of  the  Judges. 


PRE-DAVIDIC   LITERATURE.  237 

they  flourished  several  generations  earlier  in  Joshua's  time,  and 
if  in  Joshua's,  then  in  the  Mosaic  age  generally. 

The  chief  points,  therefore,  are:  i,  Conditions  in  the  per- 
iod of  the  Judges  favorable  to  the  production  and  transmission 
of  writings;  and,  2,  the  prima  facie  presumption  of  the  com- 
mon use  of  writing  and  of  an  extensive  Hebrew  literature  in  the 
Mosaic  Age.^^ 

"  Commenting  on  the  tendency  to  assume  that  writing  on  monuments  pre- 
cedes its  use  for  literary  purposes,  J.  G.  Dawson  says:  "It  is  quite  possible  that 
handwriting  was  likely  to  be  in  common  use  for  ordinary  purposes  before  ever  it 
was  thought  of  employing  it  on  stone  or  other  imperishable  material.  It  is 
incredible  that  with  civilization  at  such  a  height  as  we  find  it  on  the  shores  of  the 
Levant  as  early  as  1500  B.  C,  the  people  would  go  on  using  the  accomplishment 
of  handwriting  merely  for  public  or  political  purposes,  or  for  records  on  temple 
walls  and  monuments,  and  never  dream  of  applying  it  to  the  purposes  of  every- 
day life"  (Expl.   of  Egypt,  etc.,  p.,  240). 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 
(Continued.) 

A.    ANCIENT    STRATA    IN    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

While  the  present  inquiry  does  not  necessarily  demand  a 
consideration  of  the  question  of  the  origin  and  composition  of 
the  Pentateuch  (Hexateuch),  it  is  obvious  that  the  chief  prac- 
tical as  well  as  theoretical  interest  of  the  discussion  lies  in  the 
possible  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  or  at  least  of  the 
underlying  strata.  The  Pentateuchal  problem  is  too  large  for 
consideration  here;  but  it  will  be  proper  to  inquire  whether 
any  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  may  not  have  originated  either 
in  the  Mosaic  or  the  immediately  following  age. 

I.  Old  Hebrew  Records. 

The  Hebrews  produced  a  very  credible  literature  in  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  as  e.  g.  the  Song  of  Deborah,  the  Book 
of  the  wars  of  Jehovah  etc.  It  is  probable  that  these  works 
are  types  of  other  prose  and  poetic  writings,  of  which  unfor- 
tunately the  Old  Testament  makes  no  mention.  It  is  therefore 
antecedently  probable  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  of  early,  even  Mosaic,  origin.  The  essential  trustworthiness 
of  the  Old  Testament  records,  as  shown  by  archaeological  dis- 
coveries, justifies  the  conclusion  that  authentic  written  docu- 
ments of  the  pre-Mosaic  period  are  imbedded  in  Genesis,  as 
the  accounts  of  the  creation,  flood,  dispersion,  call  of  Abraham, 
etc.  E.  Koenig  says :  ''Upon  the  basis  of  the  above  described 
cultural  relations  of  the  patriarchs  and  of  the  positive  traces 
of  credibility  in  Israelitish  literature,  the  conclusion  appears  per- 
fectly valid,  that  not  only  traditions,  but  also  written  records 
from  the  pre-Mosaic  age  are  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  This 
seems  to  be  the  only  adequate  explanation  of  the  following  char- 
acteristics of  the  narrative,  namely  that  already  before  Moses 
stages  of  progress  are  distinguished,  that  certain  occurrences 
are  minutely  described,  and  yet  without  a  trace  of  the  laudatory 
and  over-wise  saga ;   and  that  a  part  of  the  history  contains  a 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  239 

number  of  surprising  references  to  non-Israelitish  antiquities" 
(Einl,  180). 

If  in  deference  to  the  current  criticism,  the  J  and  E  Codes 
be  assigned  to  the  ninth  and  eighth  centuries  respectively,  it 
follows  from  the  same  criticism  that  the  matter  of  these  codes 
antedates  written  prophecy  by  a  number  of  centuries.  The 
majority  of  critics  allow  that  the  authors  of  the  original  J  and 
E  strata  had  at  command  and  either  re-wrote  or  embodied, 
ancient  written  sources  going  back  in  some  cases  almost,  if 
not  quite  to  the  Mosaic  age.  According  to  Gunkel  the  patriar- 
chal sagas  received  their  present  form  prior  to  1200  B.  C,  as 
seen  from  the  silence  of  the  Pentateuch  regarding  the  sanctuary 
at  Jerusalem,  the  wars  with  the  Philistines,  the  kingdom  of 
Saul,  David  and  Solomon,  the  high-place  and  Ashera  worship 
etc.^ 

2.  Pre -Mosaic  Strata. 

The  Israelites,  while  recognizing  Moses  as  the  great  law- 
giver, carefully  preserved  the  old  land-marks  and  patriarchal 
traditions,  a  thing  impossible  without  specific  records.  The 
historicity  of  Genesis  is  established  as  much  by  v^hat  it  omits  as 
by  what  it  records.  A  late  writer  would  probably  have  repre- 
sented Abraham  as  observing  all  the  Mosaic  laws  of  sacrifice 
(as  is  actually  done  in  the  Apocryphal  Book  of  Jubilees)  and 
have  committed  other  anachronisms.  Such  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  pre-Mosaic  and  Mosaic  periods,  far  from  being  the 
result  of  a  Stndier-Zimmer  calculation  of  a  writer  living  a 
thousand  years  later,  must  date  from  a  remote  past.^  ''The 
Abraham  narratives  in  Genesis,"  says  Koenig,  ''do  not  sound 
as  if  they  were  sagas  and  myths.  Abraham  is  a  nomadic  chief 
with  a  merely  temporary  abode  in  Canaan  and  must  purchase 
a  burying-place  for  his  dead.  Would  not  the  picture  of  his  con- 
dition have  been  painted  differently  by  oral  tradition  after  the 
lapse  of  five  hundred  or  a  thousand  years  ?  We  know  what  oral 
tradition  has  to  say  of  his  migration  from  Chaldea  and  his 
kingdom  in  Damascus  (see  the  extravagant  account  in  Jo- 
sephus  Antiq.  1 :  7,  2 ;  8 :  2)". 

1  With  the  exception  of  Gen.  36:  31  there  is  no  reference  to  a  king  in  Israel; 
and  if  this  passage  be  regarded  as  a  late  insertion,  nothing  in  JE  is  demonstrably 
post-Davidic.  Certain  sections  in  these  codes  are  represented  as  originating  in 
the    Mosaic    age. 

2  An  incidental  proof  of  the  Egypticity  and  authenticity  of  the  Genesis  nar- 
ratives is  furnished  by  the  fact  that  of  the  five  kinds  of  animals  presented  to 
Abraham  by  a  Pharaoh  (Gen.  12:  16),  the  horse  is  not  mentioned,  agreeably  to 
the  fact  that  the  horse  is  not  depicted  on  Egyptian  monuments  before  the  Hyksos 
period;  it  occurs,  however,  in  the  time  of  Joseph,  Gen.  47:  17;  Ex.  9:  3.  Other 
data  of  like  character  could  be  adduced. 


240  ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

3.  Abraham   and   Cuneiform    Tablets. 

Had  Abraham  access  to  cuneiform  tablets,  and  did  he  leave 
anything  in  writing?  The  Grafians  dismiss  the  subject  con- 
temptuously, and  Driver  ridicules  the  idea  that  the  patriarchs 
may  have  had  written  records.  But  look  at  the  facts  and  proba- 
bilities.^ 

(i).  Ur  a  Literary  Center.  A  thousand  years  before  the 
Abrahamaic  age,  letters,  contracts,  histories  and  all  kinds  of 
writing  were  prepared  in  every  part  of  the  Babylonian  Empire, 
including  Canaan.*  Scribes  were  found  everywhere,  and  writ- 
ing was  almost  universal  among  the  higher  classes.  Writing 
was  a  required  exercise  in  the  schools.^ 

Ur  was  an  ancient  city  already  in  the  days  of  Abraham  and 
the  seat  of  a  high  civilization  and  of  the  worship  of  the  Moon- 
god  Sin.^  We  do  no  violence  to  the  probabilities  of  history  in 
holding  that  in  the  family  of  Terah  the  same  care  would  be 
taken  in  the  education  of  the  youth  as  in  other  families  of  the 
higher  middle  class  in  Babylonia ;  it  must  be  remembered  that 
Abraham  was  a  man  of  wealth  and  influence  when  he  was  di- 
vinely directed  to  leave  his  fatherland."^  Since  writing  was  an 
indispensable  element  in  Babylonian  life  and  civilization,  noth- 
ing is  more  probable  than  that  Abraham  in  youth  learned  to 
write  the  cuneiform  just  as  others  of  his  rank;  in  any  event 
he  could  command  the  services  of  a  scribe.  During  his  75 
years'  residence  in  Ur  he  would  certainly  have  constant  need 


f  "It  is  not  denied  that  the  patriarchs  possessed  the  art  of  writing;  but  the 
admission  of  the  fact  leads  practically  to  no  consequences;  for  we  do  not  know 
what  they  wrote,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  left  any  written  materials 
whatever   behind   them"    (Genesis,   p.,    XLIII;      ibid.,    p.,    143). 

*  "In  the  times  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon  almost  every  tablet  seems 
to  have  a  fresh  tupshar,  or  scribe.  Many  show  the  handiwork  of  women  scribes. 
But  most  of  the  persons  concerned  in  these  documents  were  of  the  priestly  rank. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  shepherds  or  workpeople  could  write.  In  the  Assy- 
rian times  the  scribe  was  a  professional  man.  We  find  aba  or  tupshar  used  as  a 
title.  So,  too,  in  later  Babylonian  times"  (C.  H.  W.  Johns,  Bab.  and  Ass.  Laws, 
Contracts,  etc.,   p.,   151). 

5  "The  fact  toat  scribes  were  so  numerous  implies  that  there  were  schools 
in  which  they  had  been  taught.  .  .  All  kinds  of  pupil  exercises  have  been  found, 
from  tablets  containing  a  repetition  of  single  wedges,  to  exercises  in  multipli- 
cation and  grammar,  and  in  the  copying  of  various  kinds  of  lists"  (Clay,  Light 
on  O.  T.,  pp.,   182,   187). 

«  "The  great  political  and  religious  centers  of  Babylonia,  Ur,  Sippar,  Agade, 
Eridu,  Nippur,  Uruk,  perhaps  also  Lagash,  and  later  on  Babylon,  formed  the 
foci  of  literary  activity,  as  they  were  the  starting-points  of  commercial  enter- 
prise"   (Jastrow,  Relig.   of  Bah.   and  Ass.,   p.,   245). 

^  "In  accordance  with  an  ancient  Oriental  custom  even  now  universally  pre- 
vailing in  the  East,  we  should  imagine  the  Babylonian  students  of  the  time  of 
Abraham  being  seated  on  the  floor  with  crossed  legs,  respectfully  listening  to  the 
discourses  of  the  priests,  practising  writing  and  calculating  on  clay  tablets,  or  com- 
mitting to  memory  the  contents  of  representative  cuneiform  texts  by  repeating 
them  in   a  moderately  loud  voice"    (Hilprecht,  Expl.   in   Bib.   Lands,  p.,    522). 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  24I 

and  opportunity  to  read  the  Babylonian  language  and  script, 
and  farniliarize  himself  with  all  the  details ;  at  the  departure  of 
the  family  from  Ur,  and  subsequently  from  Harran,  there  were 
unquestionably  professional  scribes  in  the  caravan. 

(2). Religions  Motives  in  the  Migration.  The  Terahites,  imi>elle<l 
by  religious  motives  to  migrate  to  the  West,  naturally  carried  with 
them  their  sacred  books,  for  they  must  be  supposed  to  have  had  as 
much  interest  in  religious  records  as  the  average  Babylonian,  who  as- 
sociated religion  with  every  business  transaction.  As  says  Jeremias : 
•Trom  the  analogy  of  other  religious-historical  phenomena  in  the 
Orient,  we  may  assume  that  there  was  here  a  reformatory  movement 
which  protested  against  a  religious  degeneration  in  ruling  circles" 
(A.  T.  im  Lichte,  etc.,  p.,  333).  Through  a  revelation  (outward  and 
objective  as  well  as  inward  and  subjective)  Abraham  was  led  to  mi- 
grate. According  to  Acts  7:  2,  "the  God  of  glory  appeared  unto 
our  father  Abraham,  when  he  was  in  Mesopotamia,  before  he  dwelt  in 
Harran".  The  correctness  of  this  must  be  maintained  despite  the 
negative  criticism.  Even  Jeremias  writes  :  "The  critics  [he  means  the 
Grafians]  say  that  this  is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  the  later 
prophetism.  But  this  is  a  petitio  principii  (*a  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion')".® 

B.  Baentsch  in  bis  recent  "Ancient  Oriental  and  Israelitish  Mono- 
theism", takes  high  ground  in  support  of  the  old  view  that  the  call 
of  Abraham  looked  toward  the  conservation  of  a  true  monotheism. 
"Ur  Kasdim  and  Harran,  as  well  as  Heliopolis  or  On,  are  not  merely 
geographical  designations,  but  the  nam^s  of  celebrated  ancient  sanctu- 
aries with  highly  cultured  priests,  in  whose  midst  the  old  monotheistic 
speculations  were  familiar.  If  now  the  ancient  representatives  of  the 
people  (Abraham  and  Joseph)  are  brought  into  relation  with  these 
sanctuaries,_  it  would  follow  that  the  generations  of  the  patriarchs  were 
familiar  with  the  religious  thoughts  current  at  these  sanctuaries. 
Under  these  circumstances,  the  ancestors  of  Israel  must  have  been 
monotheists,  even  if  only  in  the  old  sense."     (p.  50)." 

"Finally",  says  Baentsch,  "the  strongest  proof  that  we  have  here, 
not  a  late,  artistic  construction,  but  a  genuine  historical  record  lies  in 
the  fact  that  the  Abrahamic  narrative  in  Genesis  justifies  itself  more 
and  more  as  a  part  of  a  great  religious-historical  environment.  For, 
from  the  El-Shaddai  of  Abraham  there  are  historical  threads  to  El- 
Elyon,  who  according  to  the  clearly  unsuspicious  account  in  Gen.   14: 

•  Jeremias  continues:  ''Besides,  if  God  revealed  himself  to  the  prophets,  was 
he  inactive  m  the  origin  of  the  Israelitish  religion?  If  one  asks,  where  was  rev- 
elation before  the  time  of  Abraham,  we  reply  in  the  language  of  Acts  14:  16,  but 
in  the  sense  of  Rom.  1:  19.  With  tHe  father  of  the  faithful,  a  novum  took  place. 
a  revelation  looking  forward  to  redemptive  history"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  334).  To  the 
same  effect  also  Orelli:  "The  soil  out  of  which  the  O.  T.  religion  grew,  was  a 
Semitism,  which  recognized  a  supreme  God."  Israel's  permanent  possession  of  a 
true  monotheism  was  due  to  a  revelation  of  the  living  God  to  pious  men,  as  e.  g. 
to  Abraham,  "bei  welchem  ein  erster  Ansatz  zur  Bildung  der  spezifischen  bi'bli- 
schen  Religion   stattfand"    (Allgemeine  Religionsg.,   p.,    264). 

8  Baentsch  opposes  the  Grafian   view  that  this  monotheism  of  Israel  was  first 
taught  by  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  and  that  "the  patriarchal  history  and 
especially   the   Abrahamic   narratives    were    of   Canaanite    origin". 
16 


242  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

18  f.  was  venerated  in  ancient  Urusalem  about  2000  B.  C. ;  and  from 
this  El-Elyon  the  threads  are  spun  to  the  Lord  of  the  gods  in  the 
Amarna  period"  (p.  36). 

It  is  highly  significant  that  Abraham  migrated  from  the  great  re- 
ligious centers  Ur  and  Harran.  Jastrow,  Baentsch  and  Sayce  have 
pointed  out  that  at  both  these  places  (especially  the  former)  Abraham 
would  come  into  contact  with  the  worship  of  the  Moon-god  (now 
rapidly  degenerating),  and  that  his  "call"  to  another  country  fits  in 
exactly  with  what  the  inscriptions  intimate  regarding  the  decline  of  true 
religion. 

(j).  Early  Sacred  Records.  That  which  concerns  us  here 
is  whether  Abraham  would  take  steps  to  preserve  and  carry 
with  him  genealogical  records  and  religious  books.  ''Every 
organized  religion  has  its  sacred  books.  They  have  been  as  in- 
dispensable to  it  as  an  organized  priesthood.  .  .  .  The  sacred 
book  binds  a  religion  to  its  past ;  it  is  the  ultimate  authority  to 
which,  in  matters  of  controversy,  appeal  can  be  made,  for  it 
enshrines  those  teachings  of  the  past  upon  which  the  faith  of 
the  present  professes  to  rest"  (Sayce,  Relig.  An.  E.  and  Bab., 
398).  In  antiquity  each  great  sanctuary  had  its  own  collec- 
tion of  books.  Living  under  the  very  shadow  of  the  great 
temples  and  departing  on  a  religious  mission,  Abraham  would 
unquestionably  provide  himself  with  just  such  tablets  and  rec- 
ords as  were  deposited  in  great  numbers  in  Ur  and  Harran. 

Dr.  Julius  Fuerst  in  his  History  of  Biblical  Literature  re- 
marks that  the  Abrahamites  coming  into  contact  with  the  liter- 
ary atmosphere  of  Ur  must  have  been  influenced  thereby  to  pre- 
serve records  of  their  faith.  ''The  writings  of  the  Babylonians 
and  Canaanites  must  have  led  the  patriarchs  to  write  out  the 
traditions  of  the  remote  past,  i.  e.  the  accounts  of  the  creation, 
fall,  flood  and  dispersion,  for  they  still  lived  in  the  circle  of 
Semitic  ideas,  had  a  deep  consciousness  of  their  connection  with 
other  people,  and  transmitted  the  cosmogonic  sagas  and  the 
information  concerning  the  new  post-diluvian  race.  .  .  These 
beginnings  of  Hebrew  literature  in  the  patriarchal  period  are 
contained  in  the  primitive  Biblical  records  of  Genesis.  If  we 
omit  the  few,  but  recognizable  later,  additions  in  the  spirit  of 
the  particularistic  Mosaic  religion,  we  clearly  discover  the  pre- 
Mosaic,  archaic  expressions  and  the  common  Semitic  ideas, 
imbued,  however,  with  a  deep  ethical  spirit". ^^ 

i**  Fuerst  emphasizes  two  points:  i,  The  traditions  of  Gen.  i — ii  were  written 
in  the  patriarchal  period;  2,  The  earliest  Hebrew  literature  arose  prior  to  the 
Mosaic  individualizing  of  the  material.  "These  primitive  records  in  Genesis 
(which  reflect  the  views  of  the  West-Asiatic  races)  are  characterized  by  such  a 
realistic  style  that  one  immediately  recognizes  that  neither  the  sojourn  in  Egypt 
nor   the   distinctively  Mosaic   legislation    affected  them   essentially". 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  243 

Recent  English  writers,  as  Girdiestone  and  Lias,  also  hold 
that  Abraham  had  cuneiform  record s.^^ 

A  cardinal  tenet  of  the  Grafian  critics  is  that  Genesis  i-ii  is  trace- 
able to  Babylonian  sources.  On  the  assumption  of  some  connection 
between  the  two  accounts,  only  two  hypotheses  are  worthy  of  con- 
sideration :  I,  either  these  chapters  were  composed  by  the  Jews  during 
the  Babylonian  Exile  and  so  are  late ;  or,  2,  the  underlying  strata 
were  brought  by  Abraham  from  Ur  and  so  are  early.  At  no  inter- 
mediate period,  either  during  the  patriarchal  sojourn  in  Canaan,  the 
bondage  in  Egypt,  the  time  of  the  Judges  or  of  the  monarchy,  were 
the  conditions  present  for  the  adoption  by  the  Hebrews  of  these  prime- 
val narratives.  The  period  of  the  Babylonian  Exile  is  excluded  by  the 
fact  that  the  J  and  E  codes  were  composed  some  centuries  earlier, 
as  all  allow,  (the  Grafian  date  being  circa  850,  at  which  time  the 
Hebrews  were  not  in  touch  with  Babylon,  nor  had  they  been  for  cen- 
turies) ;  and  by  the  fact  that  the  P  sections  (assigned  by  the  Grafians 
to  the  Exilic  or  post-Exilic  period)  are  for  the  most  part  and  es- 
pecially in  Genesis  earlier  than  the  Exile  and  are  accordingly  as- 
signed by  the  Dillmann  school  to  a  comparatively  early  date,  a  view 
gradually  gaining  ground  in  other  critical  quarters. 

A  German  archaeologist,  E.  Sellin,  who  has  investigated 
anew  the  sources  of  Genesis  i-ii  reaches  the  conclusion  that 
an  absolute  separation  of  J  and  P  is  impossible.  In  some 
parts  P  has  more  original,  i.  e.  older  material  than  J.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  chapter  V  is  more  ancient  than  4:  17-22. 
It  is  also  clear  that  parts  of  the  flood  narrative  are  older  than 
J,  as  e.  g.  the  rainbow  and  the  covenant  including  animals 
(9:  12).  'The  traditional  matter  in  i-ii  was  in  all  probabil- 
ity brought  to  Canaan  by  the  family  of  Abraham"  (Bib. 
Urgesch ),  but  was  later  elaborated  from  other  sources  and 
finally  written  out  in  the  Davidic  period,  according  to  Sellin. 

Another  German  critic,  R.  Kittel,  adopts  the  view  that 
these  chapters  are  based  on  records  brought  by  Abraham  from 
the  East,  ''having  been  long  known  to  Israel,  for  the  simple  rea- 
son that  they  had  long  existed  as  an  old  heritage  in  the  East  and 
been  imported  in  substance  by  Israel  from  their  ancient  home. 
Everything  tends  to  show  that  this  material,  whether  found  in 


11  "There  would  be  no  difficulty  in  Abraham's  becoming  possessor  of  trust- 
worthy copies  or  translations  of  these  documents,  which  would  thenceforward  be 
handed  down  to  his  posterity,  and  from  these  or  such  as  these,  the  early  part  of 
Genesis  would  be  composed,  the  whole  series  being  welded  into  one  by  some  qual- 
ified person,  into  whose  keeping  the  document  would  come  on  the  death  of  Joseph" 
(R.  B.  Girdiestone,  Foundations  of  the  Bible,  p.,  48).  So,  too,  J.  J.  Lias:  "There 
is  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  supposition  that  the  patriarchs  them- 
selves could  write  and  a  high  degree  of  probability  in  consequence  that  memoirs 
were  preserved  among  their  descendants  which  were  used  in  the  narrative  in 
Genesis.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  some  of  these  were  inserted  in  extenso. 
Genealogies  would  naturally  be  copied  with  as  much  exactness  as  possible,  though 
it  is  also  possible  that  some  of  these  might  have  been  inserted  from  public  records 
by  some   later  editors"  (Prin.   Bib.    Criticism). 


244  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Babylonia  or  in  Israel,  is  very  ancient,  and  the  simplest  explana- 
tion of  the  later  variations,  is  to  be  found  in  the  assumption  that 
both  accounts  go  back  to  a  common  original,  from  which,  pro- 
ceeding in  two  streams  and  subject  to  independent  develop- 
ment, they  issue  respectively  in  a  nature-myth  (Babylon)  and 
in  a  monotheistic  religion  with  an  ethical  basis  (Israel)"  (Ori- 
ent. Ausgr.  u.  Bib.  Gesch.,  30). 

The  probability,  therefore,  that  Abraham  may  have  taken 
with  him  some  cuneiform  tablets  of  the  early  history  of  man- 
kind —  some  transcripts  of  the  Sumerian-Babylonian  Urge- 
schichte  —  is  not  so  preposterous  as  Driver  and  others  would 
have  us  believe;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  entertain  the  extreme 
view  that  the  patriarchs  carried  about  with  them  whole  ''librar- 
ies of  burnt  bricks".  A  half  dozen  tablets  six  by  eight  inches, 
carefully  encased  and  easily  stowed  away  in  a  small  ark,  would 
suffice  for  what  under  any  view  must  have  been  the  compass 
of  Genesis  i-ii  in  that  day.  If  Abraham  was  any  such  figure 
as  represented  in  the  Bible  he  must  have  preserved  a  record  of 
his  eventful  career.  Nor  do  we  depart  from  the  probabilities 
of  the  situation  if  we  assume  that  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  Joseph 
caused  ever-ready  scribes  to  write  down  the  essentials  of  patri- 
archal history  for  future  use  and  guidance. 

(4)  Canaanite  Libraries.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the 
period  of  the  Amarna  Letters  and  of  the  Judges,  writing  and 
literature  were  cultivated  in  Canaan.  Kiriath-Sepher  ("Book- 
Town")  must  have  been  "the  seat  of  a  library  like  those  of  the 
great  cities  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  —  a  library  which  doubt- 
less consisted  in  large  measure  of  books  on  clay  that  m.ay  yet  be 
brought  to  light"  (Sayce).  It  is  probable  that  there  were  li- 
braries in  Canaan  at  a  considerably  earlier  date.  In  Babylonia 
places  of  worship  were  also  seats  of  learning,  and  so  every  tem- 
ple had  its  library.  Babylonian  precedent  would  obtain  in  Ca- 
naan in  2000  B.  C. 

Some  German  scholars  (Winckler,  Benzinger,  Jeremiias, 
Erbt)  have  recently  come  out  in  support  of  the  view  that  the 
old  Canaanite  sanctuaries  (Shechem,  Gilgal,  Shiloh,  etc.,)  were 
the  depositories  of  books  and  tablets  from  early  times  and  that 
these  were  made  use  of  by  the  Israelites  after  the  conquest  in 
drawing  up  the  early  Old  Testament  books.  The  first  part  of 
the  hypothesis  is  probable  enough,  for  evidence  to  that  effect 
is  daily  accumulating ;  the  second  part  is  less  probable,  for  the 
essentials  of  Israelitish  history  and  religion  were  in  possession 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE.  245 

of  the  Hebrews  when  they  emerged  from  Egypt.  The  view 
adopted  here  is  that  the  Hebrews  took  with  them  to  Egypt  the 
records  subsequently  used  by  Moses  and  others  in  the  com- 
position of  the  Hexateuch.  Nevertheless,  the  many  proofs 
(recently  supplied  by  excavations)  that  Canaan  was  a  land  of 
letters  from  2000  to  1400  B.  C.  and  thence  to  the  later  periods, 
support  the  contention  that  such  chapters  as  Genesis  5,  10  and 
14,  may  be  based  on  old  records  (Babylonian  or  Canaanite) 
preserved  at  the  old  sanctuaries.^^ 

In  any  event,  whether  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis 
are  based  ultimately  on  old  records  carried  to  Egypt  by  Jacob 
and  preserved  there  until  the  deliverance,  or  whether  they  are 
based  in  part  on  old  chronicles  drawn  from  Canaanite  libraries 
at  Shechem,  Kiriath-Sepher,  Jerusalem  and  elsewhere,  enough 
has  come  to  light  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  early  books 
of  the  Bible  are  not  ^'cunningly  devised  fables",  or  sagas,  myths 
and  legends,  but  authentic  and  well-attested  history. 

4.  The  Antiquity  of  Genesis  XIV. 
Genesis  14  is  significant  in  this  connection.  It  relates 
that  in  the  days  of  Amraphel,  king  of  Shinar,  four  kings  from 
the  East  under  the  lead  of  Chedorlaomer  of  Elam  made  war  on 
five  vassal  kings  of  Canaan  and  having  defeated  in  succession 
a  number  of  tribes,  also  defeated  the  five  kings  in  the  Vale  of 
Siddim  and  took  booty  and  captives.  Among  the  latter  was 
Lot.  Abraham  at  once  organized  his  men  and  the  confederate 
chiefs  to  undertake  the  pursuit.  In  due  time  he  fell  upon  the 
enemy  '*by  night"  and  gained  a  signal  victory,  recovering  Lot, 
the  goods  and  the  people.  The  king  of  Sodom  and  Melchiz- 
edek,  king  of  Salem,  meet  him  upon  his  return.  He  is  blessed 
by  Melchizedek,  to  whom  he  pays  tithes.  All  this  is  graphi- 
cally related  and  conveys  the  impression  of  authentic  history. 
The  chapter  in  addition  to  casting  a  remarkable  side-light  on 
Abraham  introduces  us  to  the  unique  figure  of  Melchizedek. 
It  is,  therefore,  in  every  way  a  storm-center  of  criticism,  calling 
forth  two  antagonistic  theories.  The  section  is  regarded  by  the 
conservatives  as  ancient,  authentic  and  historical ;  by  the  Gra- 
fians  as  late,  unreliable  and  unhistorical.^^     If,  now  the  chapter 

12  "Instruction  and  science,  fostered  at  the  temples  by  the  priests,  were  orig- 
inally introduced  into  Canaan  by  the  aid  of  Babylonian  cuneiform  tablets,  which 
served  as  basis  for  study  and  transmission"  (Benz.  Heb.  Archaeol.  2  Aufi., 
S.    177). 

"  Hommel  remarks:  "The  reader  will  understand  why  it  is  that  this  four- 
teenth chapter  of  Genesis  has  come  to  be  a  sort  of  shibboleth  for  the  two  lead- 
ing schools  of  O.   T.  critics.    .    .    It  is  the  question  of  the  nature  of  history  itself 


246  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

is  based  on  old  sources,  it  furnishes  undoubted  proof  that  this 
part  of  Genesis,  and  presumably  others,  contain  authentic  his- 
tory. If,  however,  it  should  turn  out  that  the  whole  chapter 
was  composed  during  the  Exile  on  the  basis  of  oral  tradition  or 
late  sources,  not  only  the  teaching  of  the  chapter,  but  the  credi- 
bility of  Genesis  as  whole  would  be  undermined.  All  Bible 
scholars,  therefore,  regard  the  question  of  age  and  origin  as  of 
far-reaching  significance. 

(i).  Identification  of  Persons  and  Places.  It  is  a  remark- 
able fact  that  nearly  all  the  names  of  persons  and  places  have 
been  identified.  Amraphel  is  a  modified  form  of  Hammurabi,^* 
king  of  Babylon.  Shinar  is  Southern  Babylonia  and  perhaps 
the  Hebrew  equivalent  of  Shumer.^^  Chedorlaomer  "unques- 
tionably stands  for  Kiidnrlagamar,  a  genuine  Elamite  proper 
name"  (Skinner,  Gen.,  p.,  298).  That  such  a  character  as 
Chedorlaomer  flourished  in  the  time  of  Abraham  is  now  gen- 
erally admitted.^^  Arioch,  king  of  Ellasar,  is  'in  all  probability 
Eriaku,  king  of  Larsa"  (Driver).  In  ''Tidal"  many  authori- 
ties find  a  T hud k hula,  whose  name  occurs  in  the  above 
Pinches  tablets,  and  in  'Goiim",  a  corruption  of  the  word 
Guti,  a  powerful  people  near  the  Upper  Zab.^^ 

The  orthography  of  the  names  varies  somewhat  in  the  Heb. 
Sept.  and  Samaritan  texts,  rendering  the  identification  some- 
what doubtful.  But  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah,  Zeboiim  are 
mentioned  elsewhere;  and  plausible  identifications  have  been 
suggested  for  the  rest.^^     The  fact  that  some  editor  found  it 

which  divides  the  students  of  the  O.  T.  into  two  irreconcilable  factions"  i^An.  Heb. 
Trad.,   p.,   64). 

"  Nearly  all  Assyriologists  accept  the  equivalence;  Jensen,  Bezold,  Meyer 
express  doubt.  The  /  of  Amraphel  has  not  been  explained  to  the  satisfaction  of 
all.  According  to  Hommel  "the  form  Amraphel  can  be  explained  only  on  the 
supposition  that  the  original  of  Gen.  14  contained  the  reading  Ammu-rapaltu. 
This  would  be  possible  only  during  the  Hammurabi  dynasty,  for_  at  that  period 
alone  do  we  find  the  variants  Ammu-rabi  and  Ammi-rabi  side  by  side  with  Kham- 
murabi"   (An.  Heb.    Tr.). 

15  Some  Assvriologists  identify  the  word  Shinar  with  Singar,  West  of  Nine- 
veh (Zimmern,  Gunkel).  Others  suggest  that  it  has  some  connection  with  the 
Sanhar  of  the  Amarna  Letters,  and  so  with  the  Egyptian  Sangara.  In  any  event 
the  words  Shinar  and  Shumer  are  sufficiently  alike  etymologically  to  be  traceable 
to  the  same  root. 

"  "The  Elamite  royal  names  are  formed  from  Kudur;  and  the  existence 
of  an  Elamite  god  Lagamar  is  established"  (Holzinger).  See,  also  Keilinsch.  u. 
A.  T.,  p.,  485.  Three  tablets  preserved  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  and  translated  by 
Pinches  contain  a  name  read  provisionally  either  Kudurlachgamal  or  Kudurdug- 
mal  and  identified  with  Chedorlaomer. 

I''  Sayce,  however,  suggests  that  Goiim  may  be  retained  in  the  sense  of  "Na- 
tions" and  referring  to  the  "hordes"  of  Northern  people  mentioned  in  the  in- 
scriptions   as    invading    Assyria. 

"  The  Rephaim,  Zuzim,  Emim,  Horites,  Amelekites,  etc.,  are  ancient  people. 
En-Mishpat,  Seir,  Elparan,  Siddim,  Salem,  Mamre,  and  others  arc  places  of  un- 
doubted antiquity.  According  to  Paton,  "it  appears  that  nearly  all  the  names 
are  attested  by  external  evidences,  and  that  no  race  is  mentioned  in  this  chapter 
which  can  be  shown  to  belong  to  a  late  period"   (Sy.  and  Pal.,  p.,  38). 


ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE.  247 

necessary  to  explain  certain  names  is  a  proof  of  their  archaic 
character.  Thus  after  Bela  he  inserts,  "the  same  is  Zoar"  ;  after 
En-Mishpat,  **the  same  is  Kadesh" ;  after  the  Vale  of  Siddim, 
"the  same  is  the  Salt  Sea".  Salem  is  probably  Jerusalem,  in 
the  Amarna  Letters  Urusalem,  an  ancient  stronghold.^^  So 
far  then  as  the  names  of  persons  and  places  are  concerned,  the 
chapter  has  every  mark  of  antiquity  and  authenticity. 

(2).  Historic  Background  of  Genesis  XIV.  The  ques- 
tion arises  whether  the  appearance  of  Abraham  in  such  a  rela- 
tion is  historical,  or  whether  the  account  of  his  victory  and  of 
the  character  of  Melchizedek,  is  a  fiction. 

a.  Graiians  Regard  the  Chapter  as  Legendary.  Since  the 
time  of  Noeldeke  (1869),  who  dissected  the  chapter  in  the  style 
of  the  negative  criticism,  some  critics  (mostly  Grafians,  whose 
shibboleth  is  that  the  Priest  Code,  as  demanded  by  a  naturalis- 
tic scheme  of  development,  is  late,  445  B.  C.)  regard  the  nar- 
rative as  fictitious  and  some  of  the  names  pure  inventions  of 
the  author.  Others  take  a  more  favorable  view,  yet  without 
allowing  a  high  degree  of  historicity.  According  to  Driver, 
"the  campaign  may  in  outline  be  historical",  yet  "the  narrative, 
as  it  stands,  contains  elements  which  are  not  credible."^*^  Gun- 
kel  regards  the  chapter  as  semi-historical,  semi-legendary.  "The 
narrative  contains  ancient  historical  data,  as  the  names  of  the 
four  kings  and  the  historical  setting  of  the  whole,  and  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Elamite-Babylonian  kings  as  far  as  Palestine. 
The  character  of  Melchizedek  may  also  be  historical.  .  .  But 
the  narrative  contains  inherent  impossibilities".^^ 

A  similar  milk-and-water  view  is  entertained  by  Skinner 
on  Genesis  (written  avowedly  from  the  Grafian  standpoint). 
"It  is  quite  clear  that  the  names  are  not  invented;  it  is  highly 
probable  that  they  are  those  of  contemporary  kings.  .  .  Some 
such  expedition  to  the  West  is  possibly  historical ;  but  every- 
thing else  belongs  to  the  region  of  conjecture"  (pp.  273,  275). 


i»  The  objection  has  been  urged  that  the  occurrence  of  the  word  Dan  (v.  14) 
disproves  the  early  date,  since  Laish  did  not  receive  the  name  Dan  uiitil  the 
time  of  the  Judges  (Josh.  19:  47)-  It  is,  however,  more  in  keeping  with  the 
tenor  of  the  chapter  to  suppose  that  it  was  not  the  later  Laish-Dan  that  \s  in- 
tended, but  a  place   farther  South.     So  W.   H.   Green,  in  '  Lmty  of  Genests  . 

20  The  average  American  Grafian  would  doubtless  chime  in  with  Wellhausen's 
ipse  dixit:    "Noeldeke's  criticism  of  Gen.  14  remains  unshaken  and  unanswerable  . 

21  "It  is   utterly  inconceivable",  says   G.,    "that   Abraham   with    318   men    over- 
came  the   army    of   the    world-conquerors".     But   if   Abraham   with      trained  men 
came   "by    night"    and    suddenly    (as    we    must   suppose)    upon    this    Oriental    mob 
flushed  with  victory  and  composed  largelv  of  hirelings  bent  upon  booty,   he  might 
well  have  caused  a  stampede  and  accomplished  his  purpose. 


248  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Skinner  emphasizes  the  assumed  'inherent  improbability  or 
incredibiHty  of  many  of  the  incidents  recorded",  such  as  the 
circuitous  route  of  the  invaders  [but  our  ignorance  of  the  con- 
ditions is  dense],  the  rout  of  Chedorlaomer's  army  by  318  "un- 
trained men"  [though  the  narrative  says  ''trained  men"]  etc., 
and  reaches  the  conclusion  that  "the  improbabilities"  of  the 
chapter  "neutralize  the  impression  of  trustworthiness  which 
the  precise  dates,  numbers  and  localities  may  at  first  produce" 

(p.,  274).'^ 

b.  Historical  Character  of  the  Chapter.  On  the  other  hand  an 
increasing  number  of  scholars  (even  of  those  accepting  some  form  of 
the  documentary  hypothesis)  allow  that  the  historic  setting  of  the  chap- 
ter, even  in  details,  is  in  remarkable  agreement  with  the  political 
situation  in  2000  B.  C.  "The  account",  says  Jeremias,  "corresponds  to 
the  historical  relations  of  that  early  period"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  345).  Even 
Gunkel  says :  "The  narrative  contains  ancient,  undoubtedly  historical 
data,  as  the  names  of  the  four  kings  and  the  historical  setting  of  the 

whole The  character  of  Melchizedek  may  also  be  historical". 

Kittel  writes :  "It  seems  to  me  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
in  Genesis  14  we  have  a  historical  reminiscence  of  ancient  date.  At 
any  rate  this  theory  enables  us  far  more  easily  to  imagine  how  the 
passage  originated  than  the  other  hypothesis  does"  {Hist.  I,  178).  "It 
is  settled  beyond  reasonable  contradiction  that  this  chapter  stands  on 
historic  ground"   (W.  H.  Green,   Unity  of  Gen.,  198). 

c.  Early  Babylonian-Canaanite  Source.  Much  can  be 
said  in  support  of  the  proposition  that  the  old  sanctuaries  of 
Canaan,  as  Shechem,  Hebron,  Gilgal,  and  such  centers  as  Jeru- 
salem and  Kiriath-Sepher,  were  depositories  of  cuneiform  tab- 
lets containing  such  data  as  those  of  Genesis  14.  Every  sanc- 
tuary had  its  priests  and  scribes ;  and  since  the  Amarna  Letters 
show  that  in  1500- 1400,  Canaan  was  a  land  of  letters,  it  may 
be  supposed  that  cuneiform  records  of  ancient  date  were  care- 
fully preserved.  The  hypothesis  that  the  chapter  under  review 
is  a  late  Jewish  fiction  (or  Midrash)  is  met  by  Koenig  thus: 
"If  an  Exilic  Jew  had  derived  it  from'  the  Babylonian  temple 
archives,  then  probably  entirely  different  things  would  be  found 
in  the  O.  T.  than  this  isolated  reference  to  the  old  Babylonian 
period"  (Einl,  p.,  i^z)-"^ 

"  Skinner  holds  that  "many  of  the  improbabilities  spring  from  a  desire  to 
enhance  the  greatness  of  Abraham's  achievement",  though  it  is  not  clear  why  any- 
thing in  the  chapter  should  be  regarded  as  "enhancing"  his  glory  more  than  his 
remarkable  career  as  described  in  other  chapters.  Jeremias  observes  that  Gen.  21: 
22  (treaty  with  Abimelech  and  Phicol)  proves  that  Abraham  was  reputed  to  have 
"military  ability"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  326).  "History  contains  weighty  material  in  proof 
of  the  strong  personality  of  Abraham"   (ibid.). 

"  Similarly  Sayce:  "The  fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis  is  the  last  portion  of 
the  Pentateuch  which  contains  a  distinctively  Babylonian  element.  It  is  the  last 
narrative  of  which  we  can  say  that  it  was  derived  from  the  cuneiform  documents 
of  Babylonia,  either  wholly  or  in  part.  .  .  It  was  perfectly  possible  for  these 
documents  to  have  been  known  in  Canaan  before  the  Exodus"  (High.  Crit.,  etc.). 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE.  249 

Winckler  and  Jeremias  also  hold  that  ancient  records  were 
deposited  in  Shechem  and  Jerusalem  in  pre-Israelite  times  and 
utilized  by  those  who  drew  up  the  J,  E  and  other  codes.  "We 
must  assume  that  not  only  oral  but  also  written  sources  lay  at 
the  basis  of  the  J  and  E  codes,  just  as  the  Babylonian  accounts 
of  the  heroes  of  the  Hammurabi  period  profess  to  be  copies 
or  elaborations  of  old  sources"  (Jeremias,  op.  cit.,  p.,  326). 
Dillmann  writes :  ''We  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  this  is 
a  peculiar  and  in  fact  ancient  document,  but  one  which  on  ac- 
count of  the  mention  of  Dan  and  various  explanatory  clauses 
passed  through  the  hands  of  a  later  editor"  (Gen.  233). 2* 

The  writer  who  has  most  consistently  developed  the  view 
of  an  early  source  is  William  Erbt,^^  who  argues  that  Genesis 
14  and  other  early  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  are  based  on  Baby- 
lonian-Canaanite  documents  preserved  in  Palestinian  sanctuar- 
ies and  libraries.  "Having  gained  a  safe  footing",  says  Erbt, 
"regarding  Melchizedek  [who  in  Erbt's  view  is  a  strictly  his- 
torical figure]  we  shall  not  find  it  difficult  to  determine  the 
ground  for  the  preservation  of  the  accounts  of  Abraham's 
military  exploits.  They  belonged  to  the  archives  of  the  tem- 
ple at  Shechem.  Thence  the  kings  of  Judah  afterward  obtained 
them,  in  order  to  turn  to  account  for  their  political  claims  the 
ancient  records  of  the  relation  of  Palestine  to  the  East  [this 
peculiar  phase  of  E's.  view  is  not  an  essential  part  of  the  hypoth- 
esis of  ancient  records]"  (op.  cit.,  p.,  74).  Erbt  holds  that 
such  records  lay  concealed  for  centuries  and  that  some  of  them 
may  yet  come  to  light. ^'^  "The  objection  cannot  be  made  that 
the  Shechem  archives  did  not  belong  to  the  Jerusalem  kings. 
Whatever  was  valuable  in  Shechem  David  would  have  trans- 
ferred to  his  capital  either  in  the  original  or  in  copies". 

From  the  fact  that  Shechem  was  a  sanctuary  in  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham (Gen.  12:  6),  a  city  of  refuge  under  Joshua  (Josh.  20:  7),  and 
the  final  burial-place  of  Joseph  (Josh.  24:  32),  it  was  doubtless  an 
important  literary  center  from  time  immemorial  and  a  rallying-place  for 
the   Israelites   from   the   time  of  the   Conquest.     Nothing  forbids   our 


"  So  Strack:  "Gen.  14  is  taken  from  a  special  and  very  ancient  source". 
On  account  of  the  reference  to  Abraham  as  "the  Hebrew"  (v.  13),  Ewald  re- 
garded the  whole  narrative  as  derived  from  an  old  foreign  source  and  as  proof 
of  Abraham  as  an  historical  character.  "The  chapter  offers  every  indication 
that  the  data  bearing  upon  Palestine  belong,  not  to  the  late  date  of  Hebrew  history, 
but  to  very  ancient  times"   (Clay,  Light,  etc.,  p.,   140). 

25  Die  Hebraeer;    Kanaan  im  Zeitalter  d.  Hebraeischen  Wanderung,  etc.,  von' 
Wilhelm  Erbt.     Leip.,   1906. 

"  Sellin  holds  that  the  original  source  was  deposited  in  the  Temple  archives 
in  Jerusalem  and  came  under  the  notice  of  the  compilers  of  the  Pentateuch  (Neue 
Kirch.  Zeitsch.,  XVI). 


250  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

holding  {contra  Erbt  in  this  regard),  that  already  Joshua  and  his  col- 
laborators would  turn  to  good  account  any  literary  and  historical 
treasures  found  there." 

d.  Abrahamic  and  Early  Hebrew  Records.  As  seen  in 
previous  sections,  the  question  is  fundamentally  whether  there 
were  documents  among  the  Hebrews  in  pre-Davidic  and  pre- 
Mosaic  times.  If  the  conclusion  reached  above  is  correct,  that 
Abraham  may  have  brought  cuneiform  records  from  Ur  and 
have  caused  simple  narratives  of  his  time  to  be  prepared,  it 
follows  that  the  data  of  this  chapter  may  well  have  been  pre- 
served among  the  Hebrews  and  finally  incorporated  in  Genesis. 
"The  balance  of  probability  inclines  in  favor  of  a  cuneiform 
original,  moreover,  not  from  the  post-exilic  period,  but  from 
Jerusalem  in  or  soon  after  the  time  of  Abraham,  a  Hebrew 
translation  of  which  must  have  been  incorporated  into  the  main 
stock  of  the  Pentateuch  at  a  very  early  date"  (Hommel,  op.  cit., 
191).  The  probability  that  the  piece  was  drawn  up  by  some 
scribe  under  the  direction  of  Abraham  and  afterward  revised 
by  an  editor  would  account  for  the  difference  in  style  and  some 
later  insertions.^^ 

B.    WRITTEN    SOURCES    OF    SINAITIC    LEGISLATION. 

The  various  strata  of  the  Pentateuch  contain  facts  and 
principles,  not  myths  and  legends.  Nothing  in  ancient  his- 
tory is  better  attested  than  that  "Israel  in  the  period  of  its  deliv- 
erance from  Egyptian  bondage  acquired  the  fundamentals  of  its 
religious  and  political  existence"  (Koenig).  The  whole  sub- 
sequent history  echoes  with  references  to  the  new  era  inaugu- 
rated by  the  events  of  the  Exodus  (Amos  2:  10;  3:1;  Hos. 
II  :  I,  etc.).^^  The  oldest  speaking  and  writing  prophets,  far 
from  intimating  the  introduction  of  a  new  religion,  everywhere 
trace  the  laws  and  institutions  of  their  people  to  the  revelation 
on  Sinai.     In  this  early  period  there  arose  unquestionably  cer- 

2^  On  such  grounds  Erbt  holds  that  "Abraham  appears  as  a  figure  of  flesh 
and  blood  from  the  Hammurabi  period.  The  narratives  of  the  patriarchal  period, 
extant  in  the  form  of  family  tales,  would  furnish  insight  into  the  pre-historic 
conditions  of  Palestine,  if  only  we  were  able  to  interpret  these  records  as  clearly 
as  the  history   of   the   destruction   of   Sodom   by   fire   from   heaven". 

^  Critics  who  deny  the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the  chapter  generally 
accept  without  question  any  and  every  statement  found  in  the  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions; and  yet  the  latter  are  often  more  or  less  correct  copies  of  older  records. 
Every  one  conversant  with  the  original  text  of  the  Ass. -Bab.  inscriptions  knows 
that  variant  readings  occur.  See  C.  P.  Tiele  (Bab.-Assy.  Gesch.)  for  proof  of 
the  incompleteness  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  and  their  unreliability  on  other 
grounds.  If  the  scribes  who  transcribed  old  books  for  Assurbanipals  library  are 
to  be  trusted  implicitly,  may  we  not  concede  at  least  equal  accuracy  and  honesty 
to   Hebrew   scribes  and   authors? 

2»  Wellhausen  allows:  "If  the  Israelitish  narratives  were  merely  possible,  it 
would   be  folly  to   prefer   another  possibility". 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  25 1 

tain  groups  of  Mosaic  laws,  as  the  Decalog,  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  and  the  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant.  Other  pieces 
of  the  Mosaic  age  are:  the  Song  of  Victory  (Ex.  15),  the 
Blessing  of  Aaron  (Num.  6:  24-6),  the  Signal  words  (Num. 
10:  35),  the  crossing  of  the  Arnon  (Num.  21:  14)  and  the 
Triumphal  Song  on  Hebron  (Num.  21  :  27-30). ^o 

I.  Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Decalog. 

One  of  the  assured  results  of  criticism  is  the  direct  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  decalog  (at  least  in  its  unexpanded  form),  as 
attested  by  the  use  of  writing  in  the  Mosaic  age,  the  linguistic 
and  literary  phenomena,  the  appropriateness  of  the  matter  and 
the  existence  of  such  a  code  in  pre-prophetic  times.  Whether 
we  start  from  the  traditional  position  that  Ex.  20  and  Deut.  5 
are  both  Mosaic  (the  former  promulgated  at  the  beginning,  the 
latter  at  the  close  of  the  forty  years'  wandering),  or  from  the 
critical  view  that  both  are  late  recensions,  we  are  driven  to 
predicate  an  essentially  Mosaic  nucleus  underneath  both.  Some 
such  theory  leaves  undisturbed  the  view  that  Moses  promul- 
gated an  ethical  and  religious  code  of  Ten  Words,  but  concedes 
that  there  are  some  later  additions.  Under  this  view,  the  deca- 
log is  attested  by  two  witnesses  instead  of  one.^^ 

Grafians,  except  extremists,  allow  that  the  ground-work 
is  by  Moses.  "The  decalog  is  generally  held  to  have  been  in- 
corporated in  E;  but  the  substance  is  older  than  E,  and  may 
have  been  taken  from  the  tables  of  stone  in  the  ark"  (Bennett 
and  Ad.,  Intr.,  65).  Kautzsch  allows  that  "there  would  be  no 
valid  reason  for  refusing  to  attribute  to  Moses  himself  a  prim- 
itive concise  form  of  the  Decalogue,  were  it  not  for  the  formid- 
able difficulty  presented  by  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  images'' 
(Hast.  Die.  Bib.  V,  p.,  634).  To  this  it  may  be  replied  in  the 
language  of  a  writer  in  the  same  work,  "that  the  non-observance 

J*  T^^-  *^^*^  °^  incorporation  of  these  fragments  in  JE  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  date  of  their  origin,  which  under  any  view  was  early.  The  main 
parts  arose  in  the  period  represented  in  the  Bible;  there  were,  however,  some 
later  additions. 

^1  Some  naturalistic  critics  unflinchingly  follow  out  their  pre-arranged  schem- 
atisrn.  Thus  Budde:  "It  appears  that  there  existed,  in  the  earliest  times,  a  con- 
ception of  God  so  sublime  that  hardly  anything  could  have  remained  for  the 
prophets  to  do.  This  of  itself  should  suffice  to  show  the  impossibility  of  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Ten  Commandments"  (Relig.  of  Israel).  To  the  same  effect 
McNeile:  "It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Moses  promulgated  the  Ten  Words.  .  . 
The  literary  evidence  suggests  that  in  its  original  form  the  decalog  came  into  being 
as  a  distinct  code  between  E  and  the  rise  of  the  Deuteronomic  school,  i.  e. 
roughly  speaking  between  750  and  650  B.  C.  (Book  of  Ex.,  p.,  LXII).  McNeile 
is  bound  hand  and  foot  by  the  formula:  Covenant  Code  850,  Deuteronomy  621, 
Priest  Code  445  B.  C.  Nothing  is  in  the  conclusion  which  is  not  in  the  major 
premise. 


252  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

of  a  religious  law  is  no  proof  of  its  non-existence ;  and,  in  par- 
ticular, that  as  the  central  sanctuaries  possessed  no  image  in 
the  times  of  Eli,  David  and  Solomon,  the  prohibition  must  have 
been  early  operative  as  a  recognized  part  of  the  pure  Mosaic 
system"  (W.  P.  Patterson,  I,  p.,  581). 

So,  also,  Dillmann :  "That  such  a  command,  implying  the 
spirituality  of  God,  was  too  elevated  a  thought  for  the  time  of 
Moses  and  therefore  not  promulgated  by  him,  but  incorporated 
much  later,  cannot  be  proved.  .  .  Not  to  speak  of  Ex.  32, 
which  prohibits  images,  it  is  certain  that  already  in  patriarchal 
times  such  prohibition  is  implied,  as  also  in  the  post-Mosaic 
period  and  in  the  Solomonic  temple.  .  .  Amos  and  Hosea  do 
not  announce  a  new  command,  but  seek  to  enforce  an  old  one" 
(op.  cit.,  p.,  229).  *'If  anything  can  be  attributed  with  cer- 
tainty to  Moses,  it  surely  is  the  Decalogue,  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  whole  covenant  relation  of  Jehovah  to  Is- 
rael" (J.  Orr,  Problem,  etc.,  p.,  152).  The  decalog  may  there- 
fore be  regarded  as  Mosaic  in  matter  and  form. 

2.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant  has  the  following  setting:  (a), 
Ex.  20:  1-17,  the  Ten  Words,  i.  e.  the  ethical  and  religious 
law;  (b),  20:  22-26,  the  ceremonial  law;  (c),  21 :  10 — 23 :  33, 
the  social-political  law.  This  sequence  is  organific  and  regula- 
tive. It  follows  from  Ex.  24:  7  ("Moses  took  the  book  of  the 
covenant,  etc.,"),  that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  unique,  as 
being  the  legitimate  outgrowth  of  the  ethico-religious  law  gov- 
erning the  nation.  It  and  the  Decalog  fit  into  each  other  as 
necessary  complements.  It  is  significant  that  the  Covenant 
opens  with  a  reaffirmation  of  the  supremacy  of  Jehovah  Ex. 
20:  22,  23),  as  inculcated  in  the  Decalog.  The  Decalog  is  ab- 
solute, valid  for  all  times  and  individuals;  the  Covenant  is 
relative,  representing  what  is  best  for  a  given  time  and  people. 

As  seen  above  (chap.  IV),  the  discovery  of  the  cuneiform 
text  of  the  Code  Hammurabi  sheds  new  light  on  the  Mosaic 
laws  and  is  a  severe  blow  against  those  who  deny  that  the 
Covenant  Code  originated  under  Moses.  The  Expository 
Times  declares  :  "The  discovery  and  decipherment  of  the  Ham- 
murabi Code  is  the  greatest  event  in  Biblical  archaeology  for 
many  a  day".  Winckler  pronounces  it  the  most  important 
Babylonian  record  which  has  thus  far  been  brought  to  light.^^ 

•'2  From  the  standpoint  of  human  culture  and  as  a  mere  collection  of  laws,  the 
Hammurabi    Code,    as   pointed   out  by   jurists   like   Kohler,    Cohn    and  Dareste,   is 


ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE.  253 

On  account  of  the  similarity  of  some  sections  to  the  Hammura- 
bi Code,  critics  are  beginning  to  admit  that  the  Covenant  Code 
may  after  all  be  very  ancient.  Indeed,  Wellhausen  in  the  latest 
edition  of  the  Prolegomena  (1905)  writes:  "I  believe  that  the 
agricultural  legislation  in  Ex.  21—23  is  fundamentally  Canaani- 
tish,  t.  e.  pre-Israelitish"  (p.,  392).  On  this  an  out-and-out 
Grafian  remarks  :  "This  admission  of  Wellhausen  is  significant. 
And  we  shall  scarcely  go  astray  in  assuming  that  the  master 
of  the  historical-development  school,  was  impelled  to  this  change 
of  position  by  the  fact  that  the  discovery  of  the  celebrated  old 
Babylonian  Code  seriously  endangered  his  widely  accepted  hy- 
pothesis that  Israelitish  law  is  of  late  date  and  subsequent  to 
the  prophets"  (Puukko,  Das  Deiiteronomium,  p.,  36).  If  the 
Babylonians  in  2000  B.  C.  could  draw  up  the  Code  Hammurabi, 
why  might  not  Moses  a  thousand  years  later  have  drawn  up  a 
similar  code  ?  The  followers  of  Wellhausen  have  not  answered 
the  question. 

Recent  criticism  regards  the  Covenant  Code  as  very  an- 
cient. F.  Giesebrecht  in  a  monograph  on  the  Sinaitic  covenant 
points  out  that  even  the  most  radical  critics  (e.  g.  Kraetzmar 
and  Steuernagel)  see  in  J  and  E  traces  of  a  covenant  which 
rnust  be  regarded  as  having  "the  character  of  the  highest  an- 
tiquity" ;  ^  and  in  fact  "the  Sinaitic  Covenant  has  a  strong  claim 
to  antiquity  and  historicity.  .  .  The  result  of  our  investigation 
is  that  the  historically  real  and  prophetically  mediated  relation 
between  Jehovah  and  Israel  received  official  authentication  in 
a  formal  act  which  we  may  unquestionably  call  a  covenant  .  . 
which  was  formed  when  Moses  after  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt  led  a  grateful  people  to  Sinai"  (Geschichtlichk.  d.  M. 
Bundes,  p.,  64).^^ 

Finally,  "if  the  Decalogue  is  allowed  to  be  Mosaic,  there 
is  little  reason  for  denying  that  the  remaining  laws   (*judg- 

superior  to  the  Mosaic  legislation.  But  "the  moral  undertone  of  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  reverence  toward  God,  love  to  neighbor,  humane  treatment  of  animals, 
and  the  great  underlying  thoughts  of  the  Decalog,  are  lacking  in  the  Code  Ham- 
murabi, The  latter  has  no  law  implying  even  remotely  the  philanthropic  gran- 
deur of  Ex,  23:  4,  5:  "If  thou  meet  thine  enemy's  ox  or  ass  going  astray,  thou 
shalt  surely  bring  him  back",  etc.  We  have  here  the  paradox  of  a  people  com- 
paratively low  in  culture  producing  the  highest  pre-Christian  ethics;  and  of  a 
people  of  high  culture  lacking  in  the  monotheistic  and  ethical  instincts.  See, 
further,  A.  S.  Zerbe,  on  "The  Code  Hammurabi  and  the  Mosaic  Book  of  the 
Covenant"  in  Reformed  Ch.  Rev.,  Jan,  and  Apr.,  1905. 

«3  Although  B.  Baentsch  regards  the  book  as  dating  from  the  ninth  century, 
he  allows  that  "in  its  present  form  it  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  original 
work"  and  is  based  on  early  sources  (Bundesb.,  120).  In  a  later  work,  B.  con- 
cedes somewhat  more  to  the  originating  activity  of  Moses  (Monotheismus,  p.,  83). 
Steuernagel  concedes  that  the  covenant  has  "such  archaic  features  that  the  pos- 
sibility of  its   describing  the  actual  course  of  events  must  be  allowed". 


254  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

merits')  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  with  which  the  Ten 
Words  stand  in  so  close  a  connection,  also  proceeded  from 
Moses  in  substantially  their  present  form"   (Orr,  op.  cit.,  p., 

154)- 

3.  The  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

In  Ex.  34:  10,  28  we  read :  "Jehovah  said,  Behold,  I  make 
a  covenant.  .  .  And  Moses  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words 
of  the  covenant,  the  Ten  Commandments".  The  section  34 : 
10-28  is  regarded  by  some  critics  as  J's  summary  of  the  Sinai 
legislation  and  is  called  the  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  Great  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  21 — 
23)  by  E.  The  question  arises  whether  the  (Ten)  Command- 
ments of  34:  28  are  those  of  20:  3-17,  or  other  Commandments 
presumably  contained  in  the  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant.^* 
The  text  is  in  some  confusion,  as  even  conservative  critics  ad- 
mit. It  is  not  essential  to  our  purpose  to  decide  the  matter. 
As  G.  V^os  says :  "After  the  Covenant  had  been  broken,  the 
second  law  (ch.  28)  was  of  course  written  separately  after  the 
analogy  of  the  first"  (Mosaic  Origin  etc.,  p.,  204).  The  fact, 
admitted  by  all,  is  that  Moses  was  directed  to  write  this  sec- 
tion, or  at  any  rate  the  underlying  stratum.  This  is  additional 
proof  of  the  literary  activity  of  Moses. 

4.  The  Memorial  against  Amalek. 

According  to  Ex.  17:  14  Jehovah  directed  Moses  to  write 
"a  memorial  in  a  book".^^  This  stands  in  an  E  connection  and 
is  admittedly  ancient.  "It  is  evident  that  the  writer  would 
not  have  expressed  himself  thus,  if  he  had  not  had  a  written 
record  (going  back  to  Moses)  of  this  Amalek- War  and  God's 
command"  (Vos,  p.,  200).  The  passage  is  a  clear  proof  that 
Moses  or  his  scribes  wrote  something,  as  Dillmann  remarks, 
"to  blot  out  the  memory  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven,  even 
his  very  name".  If  such  an  episode  was  worthy  of  record, 
much  more  the  weightier  matters  of  that  day.^® 


3*  "The  so-called  second  Decalogue  of  J  in  34:  12-26,  is,  in  fact,  pretty  much, 
as  scholars  p.re  coming  to  see,  a  figment  of  the  critical  imagination"  (Orr,  p., 
153).  Addis  regards  the  division  into  ten  as  mere  guess  work.  Kittel :  "It 
requires   the  utmost   arbitrariness  to  find  in  it  the  number  ten". 

^'  The  margin  of  the  Am.  Rev.,  following  an  alternative  Hebrew  reading, 
has  "the  book".  "The  most  plausible  interpretation,  is  that  which  the  Massorah 
intimated  by  adding  the  article;  viz.,  Moses  was  accustomed  to  commemorate  im- 
portant events  and  commands,  and  that  this  book,  the  origin  of  our  present  Pen- 
tateuch,  is   referred  to   by   God"    (Vos,   p.,    202). 

-^  McNeile,  contrary  to  his  usual  scepticism,  says:  "Moses  probably  learnt 
some  form  of  writing  when  he  was  brought  up  in  Egypt.  .  .  At  any  rate  it  [the 
Hebrew  alphabet]   dates  from  a  period  long  before  the  Exodus"  (op.  cit.,  p.,    103). 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  255 

5.   The  Song  of  Moses  and  Miriam. 

The  so-called  "Song  of  Moses",  Ex.  15:  1-18,  is,  in  con- 
ception and  forceful  language,  one  of  the  finest  examples  of 
Hebrew  lyric  poetry.  Omitting  vs.  i  and  18,  it  may  be  divided 
into  three  strophes  :  I,  verses  2"-5  ;  II,  6-10;  III,  11-17.^^  The 
first  two  strophes,  as  shown  by  the  language  and  thought,  are 
archaic  :^^  so  also  the  third,  except  that  the  latter  part  of  v.  15, 
*'all  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  are  melted  away",  seems  to  have 
been  added  after  the  conquest.  A  considerable  body  of  critics 
(Del.,  Dill.,  Strack)  hold  that  the  ode  was  written  out  shortly 
after  the  event  commemorated.  Others  contend  that  though 
the  first  two  strophes  may  be  early,  the  third  is  late.^^  In  brief, 
scholars  vary  a  thousand  years  in  the  date  —  a  striking  example 
of  the  uncertainty  of  criticism. ^'^ 

From  the  fact  that  the  verbs  generally,  especially  in  vs.  8 
and  10,  are  in  the  past  tense  and  for  other  reasons,  we  incline 
to  the  view  that  the  poem  was  composed  in  Canaan  shortly 
after  the  occupation;  the  poet  by  a  bold  figure  conceives  the 
entrance  into  Canaan  as  but  a  logical  result  of  the  passage  of 
the  sea.  The  ode  in  its  present  form  is  not  absolutely  Mosaic, 
but  rather  an  elaboration  of  a  brief  song  uttered  at  the  time.*^ 

Correct.  The  evidence  is  daily  accumulating  that  Moses  wrote  in  the  archaic 
Phoenician  script  and  that  the  Hebrew  Bible  from  the  first  was  written  (not  in 
cuneiform),   but   in  the    Hebrew   language   and  script. 

3^  So  Keil,  Dillmann,  Holzinger,  Baentsch.  There  are  various  other  divi- 
sions. A  good  one  is  by  P.  Haupt  into  9  stanzas  of  4  Meshalim,  or  two  Mas- 
soretic  verses  each.  See  Am.  Jour.  Sent.  Lang.,  XX,  149 — 72  and  Sievers  Metri- 
sche  Stud.,  p.,  408. 

'*  Contrary  to  McNeile,  we  regard  the  style  and  vocabulary  as  early,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  a  very  few  words  in  strophe  III.  Archaisms:  the  pro- 
noun ZH  V.  13  and  16,  and  the  absence  of  the  article  8-10,  12;  the  pronominal 
suffixes  7no  and  mii  (nine  times,  hem  only  once)  and  kemo;  also  alluphe  and 
ele,  V.  15,  etc.  The  alleged  Aramaisms  are  not  necessarily  late.  "Several 
words  which  are  common  in  Aramaic  are  archaic  (and  poetic)  in  Hebrew"  (Haupt, 
p.,  152). 

^^  Moore  is  certain  that  "17  b  —  which  there  is  no  formal  reason  for  regard- 
ing as  an  interpolation  —  speaks  of  the  building  of  the  temple"  (En.  Bib.,  col. 
1450).  Das  geht  nicht  an.  Makon  und  Mikkadesh  sind  fortschreitende  Appo- 
sitionen  zu  'dem  Berge  deines  Erbteils',  indem  der  Dichter  nach  Nennung  des  All- 
gemeinen,  des  Landes,  nun  fortschreitet  zur  Nennung  des  Speciellen,  worauf  er 
hinzielt  (v.  i^),  der  Wohnstaette  oder  des  Heiligtums  Gottes  in  diesem  Land,  an 
welchem    auch    dieses    Festlied   gesungen   wurde    (nach    Dillmann). 

*«  Dates  suggested:  older  critics,  Mosaic  age;  Del.,  Dill,  etc.,  1280;  Reuss, 
950;  Grafians  generally,  850-650;  Bender,  450;  Haupt  350.  Referring  to  Ben- 
der's date,  Haupt  says:  "It  is  quite  possible  that  it  is  a  century  later,  it  may 
have  been  inserted  long  after  the  completion  of  the  Pentateuch"  (op.  cit.,,  p.,   154). 

"  According  to  Kittel,  "the  older  form,  which  perhaps  came  down  from  the 
very  days  of  Moses,  is  here  transformed  into  an  artistically  membered  psalm  for 
the  use  of  the  people  in  Canaan.  Probably  it  is  from  an  ancient  song-book" 
(Hist.,  I.,  p.,  207).  It  may  have  been  copied  from  the  Book  of  Wars  of  Jehovah. 
Strack  says:  "In  its  present  form,  the  poem  is  a  Festival-Ode  in  commemoration 
of  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  the  pursuing  Egyptians.  The  closing  strophe, 
and  accordingly  the  completion  of  the  whole  Song,  may  be  assigned  to  the  period 
shortly  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  Neither  v.  13,  nor  17  requires  us  to  go 
•^own  to   the  Davidic  age"    (Kom.,  p.,   214). 


256  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

6.  The  J  and  E  Codes  Ancient. 
The  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  reviewed  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tions and  assigned  by  the  critics  (Grafian  and  Dillmann)  to  the 
J  and  E  codes,  contain  very  ancient  matter,  going  back  in  some 
cases  to  the  Mosaic  age.  How  much  of  the  remainder  is  Mo- 
saic, or  post-Mosaic,  is  in  dispute,  as  is  also  the  question  when 
the  bulk  of  J  and  E  were  written.^^  The  evidence  adduced  in 
the  foregoing  pages  warrants  the  conclusion  that  the  nucleus, 
if  not  a  very  considerable  part  of  these  codes,  originated  in  the 
Mosaic- Joshua  period,  or  not  long  thereafter.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  a  few  passages,  the  whole  of  the  matter  in  J  and  E 
(so  far  as  the  language  and  historical  setting  are  concerned) 
might  well  have  been  composed  in  the  pre-monarchical  period. 
Some  editor  probably  revised  the  underlj^ng  strata  and  com- 
bined them  into  the  organic  whole  lying  before  us.  These  so- 
called  J  and  E  narratives,  as  based  on  early  documents,  ac- 
cordingly take  us  back  almost,  if  not  quite  to  the  Mosaic  age.^^ 

C.   THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  BOOK   OF  DEUTERONOMY. 

According  to  the  traditional  view  the  book  of  Deuteronomy 
was  written  in  substantially  its  present  form  by  Moses ;  in  the 
Grafian  scheme  it  was  compiled  some  time  between  721  and 
621  B.  C.  (see  above,  pp.,  10,  12,  13).  Both  parties  are  certain 
of  the  correctness  of  their  position.  The  problem  of  reconciling 
the  rival  claims  is  too  complicated  to  receive  full  treatment 
here;  only  what  pertains  to  the  possibility  of  underlying  Mo- 
saic strata  need  be  considered  here. 

I.  Dilemma  of  Criticism. 

Critics  who  claim  that  the  book  arose  in  the  Manasseh- 
Josiah  period  are  involved  in  an  awkward  dilemma  in  explain- 
ing how  an  author  could  make  it  appear  that  a  book  on  which 
the  ink  was  scarcely  dry  was  from  Moses. 


**  Gunkel  holds  that  when  J  and  E  were  compiled  "there  was  an  extensive 
collection  of  literature,  of  which  the  extant  remains  are  only  fragments,  just  as 
the  three  Synoptists  are  only  remains  of  a  more  extensive  early  Christian  liter- 
ature". Sayce  believes  that  the  cuneiform  originals  of  parts  of  J  and  E  are  pre- 
Mosaic.  "It  was  perfectly  possible  for  these  documents  to  have  been  known  in 
Canaan  before   the  Exodus"  (High.   Crit.,  p.,    171). 

*'  According  to  Koenig,  the  J  code  is  composed  of  parts  and  sections  both 
Mosaic  and  pre-Mosaic  and  was  brought  into  its  present  shape  (substantially)  in 
the  period  of  the  Judges.  It  was  compiled  at  one  of  the  sanctuaries,  probably 
Shiloh.  Koenig  adduces  as  proof  of  his  contention  a  number  of  linguistic  argu- 
ments too  technical  to  be  reproduced  here.  That  E  drew  from  ancient  narratives 
is  admitted  by  all  critics.  Dillmann  says:  "The  author  unquestionably  made  use 
of  written  sources,  of  which  there  were  many  in  his  day.  That  he  did  not  com- 
pose, but  incorporate  Ex.  20-23  is  clear;  other  sources  are  the  register  of  sta- 
tions (Num.  21:  4-35)  and  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jehovah,  from  which  he  may 
have  derived  his  account  of  other  wars". 


ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW    LITERATURE 


257 


(i).  A  Pious  Fraud.  Critics  of  the  extreme  left  boldlv 
declare  that  the  work  was  a  "pious  fraud"  in  the  interest  of  a 
desired  reform.  Kuenen  says:  'It  is  certain  that  an  author 
of  the  seventh  century  has  made  Moses  himself  proclaim  that 
which  in  his  opinion  it  was  expedient  to  the  real  interests  of 
the  Mosaic  party  to  announce  and  introduce".  Cornill :  ''We 
must  recognize  the  fact  that  we  have  here  a  pseudograph,  and 
that  this  was  known  to  the  persons  interested".  Holzinger: 
'The  book  is  in  any  event  a  pseudograph.  .  .  It  represents 
itself  unquestionably  as  a  work  of  Moses".'^*  After  declaring 
in  the  manner  of  the  Grafians  that  "the  Josianic  law-book  marks 
a  turning-point  in  the  spiritual  development  of  Israel",  Hol- 
zmger  properly  enough  asks :  "Does  then  a  turning-point  in 
the  spiritual  history  of  mankind  rest  on  a  fraud  ?"  Betraying 
the  real  mwardness  of  his  school,  Holzinger  unflinchingly  de- 
clares: "Even  a  decided  affirmative  answer  were  not  a  result 
of  a  naturalistic  view  of  history  nor  an  introduction  of  the 
same"  (op.  cit.,  330).  Why  not?  Is  not  the  whole  Grafian 
scheme  primarily  a  naturalistic,  evolutionistic  philosophy,  and 
only  secondarily  a  literary-historical  study  ?  Here  the'  paths 
of  the  consistent  theist  and  of  the  pantheist  lead  in  diametrically 
opposite  directions.  Holzinger  makes  a  weak  attempt  to  show 
that  the  authors  of  the  deception  were  prompted  by  pure  mo- 
tives !  !*^     The  thought  is  abhorrent. 

(2).  Imaginative  Rezimii cation  of  the  Past.  Less  radical 
Grafians  urge  that  all  can  be  explained  by  a  well-known  literary 
expedient,  namely  that  of  attributing  supposed  speeches  to  an- 
cient worthies.  Such  is  the  view  of  Driver  :  "The  imaginative 
revivification  of  the  past,  by  means  of  discourses,  conversa- 
tions and  even  of  actions,  attributed  dramatically  to  characters 
who  have  figured  upon  the  stage  of  history,  has  been  abundant- 
ly exemplified  in  literature.  .  .  The  dialogues  of  Plato,  the 
tragedies  of  Shakespeare,  the  Paradise  Lost  and  even  the  poem 
of  Job  .  .  .  have  never  been  condemned  as  immoral  frauds" 
(Deut.,  p.,  LVIII). 

It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  in  such  cases  the  reader 
knows  from  the  setting  whether  he  has  before  him  a  novel,  a 


**  Holz.  adds:  ''Whether  merely  the  king  and  people,  or  also  the  finders  [of 
the  book  described  in  2  K.  22]  were  deceived,  or  whether  some  old  prophet  or 
a  commission   falsely   attributed  the  book  to   Moses,   matters   not"   (Einl.,    330). 

^^  Cheyne  entertains  a  similar  view:  "Such  conduct  as  that  of  Hilkiah  is, 
I  maintain,  worthy  of  an  inspired  (sic!)  leader  and  statesman  in  that  age  and 
under   those  circumstances". 

17 


258  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW    LITERATURE. 

scientific  treatise,  or  an  epic  poem.*^  So  here,  the  impression 
from  first  to  last  is  that  created  by  a  book  intended  to  be  un- 
derstood in  its  natural  sense  as  an  account  of  actual,  and  not 
imagined  situations.  We  cannot  avoid  the  suspicion  that  the 
author,  if  living  in  the  Manasseh-Josiah  period,  was  guilty  of 
deception  in  representing  an  unreal  situation  as  truly  historical. 
In  fact,  however,  Driver,  far  from  placing  Deuteronomy  in  the 
same  category  with  the  writings  of  Dante,  and  Shakespeare  (as 
consistency  would  require),  considers  it  as  essentially  histori- 
cal. Many  of  the  laws  are  repeated  from  the  Book  of  the  Cov- 
enant; others  are  attested  by  the  Law  of  Holiness,  and  others 
still,  on  internal  grounds,  are  clearly  ancient.  In  fact  Deuter- 
onomy, says  Driver,  may  be  described  as  the  prophetic  reformu- 
lation of  an  older  legislation.  The  author  of  Deuteronomy  in 
thus  combining  the  laws  "into  a  manual  for  the  guidance  of 
the  people  cannot  be  held  guilty  of  dishonesty  or  literary  fraud". 
This  is  a  subtle  explanation;  but  all  depends  on  the  amount 
of  matter  which  is  actually  attested  and  accepted  as  Mosaic, 
and  that  which  is  merely  an  elaboration  of,  or  a  deduction 
from.  Mosaic  principles.  If  the  former  be  the  meaning  of 
Driver,  we  see  no  serious  objection;  if  the  latter,  then  the  door 
is  opened  for  whatever  the  seventh  century  writer  chose  to 
regard  as  a  legitimate  development  of  Mosaism.  Obviously, 
such  a  procedure,  if  carried  to  an  extreme  (as  might  well  be 
the  case),  would  issue,  if  not  in  a  ''pious  fraud",  a  "pseudo- 
graph",  then  certainly  in  something  like  a  historical  novel, 
which  might  be  interesting  as  a  work  of  the  imagination,  but 
valueless  as  the  basis  of  religion. 

2.  Language  and  Style. 

The  view  that  Deuteronomy  is  substantially  an  early  book 
encounters  at  once  the  objection  that  the  style,  language  and 
form  are  late.  The  style  in  comparison  with  J,  E,  and  P  is 
not  decisive  either  way.  In  fact  so  far  as  mere  style  goes,  the 
Hebrew  is  less  ornate  and  finished  than  that  of  J  or  E,  and 
so  would  indicate  an  earlier  date.  As  to  the  vocabulary  and 
language,  no  Hebraist  would  claim  that  we  have  anything  more 
than  a  relative  criterion  for  determining  the  age  of  a  Hebrew 
composition,  since  the  extent  of  Hebrew  literature  is  too  small 
and  the  absolute  dates  too  few  to  enable  us  to  reach  a  final 
judgment.     The  hapaxlegomena  warn  us   to  be   cautious   in 


"  The    reader    of   Kingley's    Hypatia,    Wallace's   Ben   Hur,    or    any    historical 
novel,  is  not  misled  into  supposing  that  he  is  reading  veritable  history. 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE.  259 

fixing  the  date  of  an  Old  Testament  book  on  the  basis  of  vocab- 
ulary and  form.  Koenig  reminds  us  that  ''the  foreign  judge 
of  a  literature  like  the  ancient  Hebrew  cannot  always  certainly 
know  what  elements  of  language  are  too  old  or  too  recent  for 
a  given  author".  If  we  take  our  departure  from  the  Song 
of  Deborah,^  and  the  prophets  Amos,  First  Isaiah,  and  Micah, 
whose  date  is  agreed  upon,  and  whose  language  and  style  indi- 
cate centuries  of  literary  activity  in  Israel,  we  may  confidently 
affirm  that  the  chief  parts  of  the  book  (excepting  some  editor- 
ial glosses),  so  far  as  mere  language  and  diction  are  concerned, 
may  well  have  originated  in  premonarchical,  and  even.  Mosaic 
times.*^ 

3.  Historical  Situation   that  of  Mosaic  Age. 

A  remarkable  feature  of  the  book  is  the  constant  reference 
direct  or  indirect  to  the  Egypt  of  the  time  of  Moses,  and  the 
entire  absence  of  any  allusion  to  the  nations  of  a  later  period. 
It  may  of  course  be  maintained  that  the  Deuteronomist  success- 
fully imposed  his  work  on  the  public  by  excluding  any  refer- 
ence to  post-Mosaic  events.  But  it  has  often  been  shown  that 
it  is  psychologically  and  historically  impossible  for  a  writer  to 
conceal  all  traces  of  his  age  and  environment.^^  The  politi- 
cal, social  and  religious  conditions  of  the  Manasseh-Josiah 
age  were  entirely  different  from  those  implied  in  the  book, 
which  are  those  of  the  Egypt  of  Menerptah.*^ 

No  Egyptologist  has  yet  succeeded  in  showing  that  the 
representations  of  the  book  do  not  correspond  accurately  with 
the  state  of  affairs  in  the  Mosaic  age.  Conversely  we  find  in 
Deuteronomy  not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  activity  of  the  Assy- 
rian kings  of  the  seventh  century,  nor  any  reference  direct  or 
implied  to  the  stirring  events  in  Israel  during  this  period.  If 
the  book  were  written  to  meet  the  conditions  in  the  Southern 


*''  Linguistic  evidence  of  antiquity  is  adduced  by  Koenig  (than  whom  there  is 
no  higher  authority  in  Europe) :  "Just  as  the  Covenant  Book  has  alongside  of 
anokhi  also  a  few  ani,  so  beside  the  many  anokhi  (26  times  in  the  phrase  asher 
anokhi),  there  are  also  two  ani,  one  in  chs.  12 — 26,  the  other  in  29:  13.  Further, 
the  characteristic  «n  in  the  perfect,  8:  3,  16  is  perhaps  only  an  imitation  of  the 
imperfect   un,   to   prevent   hiatus   and  is   found   also  in   Is.   26:   16"   (Einl.   215). 

*^  Literary  forgeries,  like  those  of  Chatterton,  Macpherson,  the  pseudo- 
Phaleris  and  others,  though  for  a  time  escaping  detection,  have  always  been  ex- 
posed when  once  subjected  to  a  rigid  criticism.  In  each  instance  the  writer  be- 
trayed himself  by  glaring  anachronisms  and  contradictions.  It  would  not  have 
been  otherwise  here. 

*9  "The  nearly  two-score  references  to  Egypt  by  name  alone  are  of  unmis- 
takable significance.  In  eleven  only  of  the  34  chapters  do  we  fail  to  find  them. 
They  abound  equally  in  every  part  —  laws  as  well  as  history.  More  than  half 
the  references  are  to  Israel's  deliverance  and  the  signal  manner  of  it"  (Bissell. 
Pent.). 


26o  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Kingdom,  one  would  expect  to  find  at  least  some  allusion  to 
contemporaneous  events  and  circumstances;  but  nothing  of 
the  kind  is  found  in  the  whole  book.  This  singular  fact  has 
never  been  explained  by  the  new  criticism.  The  only  answer 
of  Driver  and  his  school  is  that  the  writer  so  skillfully  sup- 
pressed all  contemporary  allusions  and  was  so  deeply  steeped 
in  Egyptian  antiquities  that  he  successfully  hoodwinked  every- 
body but  the  astute  nineteenth  century  critics  —  a  claim  which 
would  stamp  the  author  as  the  most  adroit  literary  forger  of 
history. 

4.  No  Reference  to  Jerusalem. 

One  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  book  according  to  the  Gra- 
fians  is  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  central  place  of  worship,  and  yet 
no  reference  at  all  is  made  to  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  or  to  its 
service  and  altar.  The  command  is  given :  "Unto  the  place 
which  Jehovah  your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  your  tribes,  to 
put  his  name  there,  even  unto  his  habitation  shall  ye  seek,  and 
thither  shalt  thou  come"  (12:  5).  The  writer  never  advances 
beyond  this,  though  the  matter  is  referred  to  nearly  a  score  of 
times.  The  ''high  places",  the  Baal  worship  and  the  Asherim 
were  to  be  exterminated,  and  yet  the  great  central  sanctuary 
is  never  even  hinted  at.  This  seems  utterly  inexplicable  if  the 
book  were  composed  in  the  age  of  Josiah  and  had  as  its  aim 
the  centralization  of  worship  in  Jerusalem.  The  book  un-r^.crr 
this  view  is  entirely  too  tame  and  colorless ;  but  all  is  in  har- 
mony if  the  work  originated  in  the  Mosaic  age. 
5.  Moses  Represented  as  Author. 

Against  the  dictum  of  Driver  that  Deuteronomy  nowhere 
professes  to  be  written  by  Moses,  it  may  be  confidently  affirmed 
that  it  everywhere  is  represented  as  emanating  from  him.  At 
least  nine-tenths  of  the  book  may  be  regarded  as  ascribed  to 
him.  ''The  name  of  the  lawgiver  is  found  37  times  in  the  book, 
and  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  it  is  introduced  with  the 
special  purpose  of  connecting  him  authoritatively  with  its  mat- 
ter. The  strictly  legislative  portion  (chaps.  12-26)  shares  this 
peculiarity  equally  with  the  historical,  the  first  person  being 
used  without  exception.  Omitting  the  last  chapter,  there  are 
less  than  a  half  dozen  exceptions  to  this  uniform  classification" 
(Bissell,  p.,  260).  Moses  is  represented  as  responsible  not 
merely  for  the  matter,  but  equally  so  for  the  literary  form.  It 
is  affirmed  (31  :  9,  24)  that  he  wrote  it  "to  the  end".  If  it 
be  objected  that  such  words  as  "this  law",  "this  book  of  the 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE.  261 

law",  restrict  the  reference  to  a  mere  fraction,  it  is  sufficient 
to  remark  that  the  parts  are  so  interwoven  that  such  phrases 
must  refer  to  the  book  up  to  a  certain  place. 

It  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the  fitness  of  the  occasion  that 
"when  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this 
law  in  a  book,  until  they  were  finished  that  Moses  commanded 
the  Levites  .  .  .  take  this  book  of  the  law  and  put  it  by  the 
side  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there 
for  a  witness  against  thee"  (31  :  24,  5).  In  every  part  of  the 
book  language  is  used  which  is  represented  as  uttered  by  Mo- 
ses, as,  "We  saw  the  sons  of  the  Anakim"  ( i  :  28)  ;  "I  com- 
manded Joshua  at  that  time,  etc.,"  (3:  21)  ;  ''your  eyes  have 
seen  all  that  Jehovah  did  because  of  Baal-Peor"  (4:3);  "I 
speak  not  with  your  children,  who  have  not  known  etc.," ;  "Ye 
have  seen  all  that  Jehovah  did  before  your  eyes"  (29:  3-5). 
This  language  surely  purports  to  come  from  Moses ;  and  if  it 
was  not  used  by  him,  it  is  a  remarkable  case  of  impersonation, 
if  not  of  literary  forgery,  for  the  writer  represents  himself,  as 
reproducing,  not  what  Moses  might  have  said,  but  the  exact 
words  of  Moses.  If  the  theory  of  Mosaic  authorship  (of  the 
underlying  strata)  be  rejected,  we  are  driven  logically  (despite 
the  protestations  of  Driver)  to  the  revolutionary  hypothesis  of 
"a  pseudograph",  "a  pious  fraud",  as  Kuenen  and  Holzinger 
admitted. 

6.  Antecedent  Probability   of  Mosaic  Basis. 

The  theory  that  the  book  in  substance  comes  from  the 
Mosaic  age  is  antecedently  probable.  Driver  allows  "a  tradi- 
tion, if  not  a  written  record  of  a  final  legislative  address  by 
Moses".  So,  also,  Oettli :  "It  is  probable  that  Moses  before 
his  death  impressed  upon  the  people  the  substance  of  the  divine 
covenant ;  and  so  the  Deuteronomic  addresses  may  rest,  as  says 
Delitzsch,  on  a  traditional  substratum."  Oettli  refutes  the 
Grafian  view  that  since  Deuteronomy  was  the  basis  of  the 
Josianic  reform,  it  was  also  written  about  that  time.  Allowing 
that  the  book  of  Kings  contains  references  to  Deuteronomy, 
Oettli  asks  whether  we  are  bound  to  infer  that  the  book  arose 
in  the  circle  which  inaugurated  the  reforms  ?  "The  account 
in  2  K.  22  excludes  such  a  supposition.  The  use  of  the  article 
in  the  phrase  'the  book  of  the  law',  is  explained  naturally  if 
understood  of  an  early  well-known,  temporarily  forgotten,  but 
now  discovered  book.  .  .  The  objections  to  the  view  that 
Deuteronomy  may  have  been  forgotten  for  a  time  are  not  well 


262  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

sustained.  More  than  one  great  reformation  has  been  effected 
by  those  who  did  not  plan  it,  but  who  in  the  whole  development 
were  instruments  in  the  hands  of  God.  Even  under  Josiah  the 
requirements  of  Deuteronomy  were  only  partly  carried  out ;  in 
fact  some  provisions,  as  those  regarding  the  Levites,  were  not 
enforced".^^ 

The  rare  references  to  Deuteronomy  in  the  pre-Josianic 
period  are  regarded  by  Oettli  as  proving  nothing.  "The  his- 
tory of  Israel  is  not,  as  some  critics  assume,  a  literary-histori- 
cal one,  but  an  entirely  free  development  conditioned  by  cir- 
cumstances not  definitely  known  at  present.  How  circumstan- 
tial is  the  literary  authentication  of  the  oldest  strata  [i.  e.  JE 
in  critical  parlance]  of  the  Torah  even  in  Isaiah  !^^  Need  we 
marvel  that  the  prophets  (who  often  quote  from  memory) 
contain  only  a  few  direct  references  to  Deuteronomy?"  (Op. 
cit.,  p.,  20) .  However,  the  number  of  quotations  is  sufficiently 
numerous  to  establish  the  claim  that  Deuteronomy  was  extant 
in  the  eighth  century.  Let  the  reader  compare  the  following : 
Amos  2  :  8  and  Deut.  8:2;  Hos.  4 :  4  and  Deut.  17 :  12 ;  Hos. 
3  :  I  and  Deut.  7  :  8  and  31  :  18 ;  Hos.  5  :  10 ;  Deut.  19 :  14 ;  Is. 
7,  12,  Deut.  6:  16.^^ 

7.  Alleged  Anachronisms  and  Contradictions. 

It  is  alleged  that  anachronisms  and  contradictions  mark 
a  later  than  the  Mosaic  age.  Much  of  the  matter  said  to  be 
late  is  in  the  form  of  introductory  statements,  quite  germane 
to  the  context.  Thus  i  :  2,  ''there  are  11  days  journey  from 
Horeb  . .  .  unto  Kadesh-Barnea",  is  meaningless  in  the  mouth 
of  Moses,  but  quite  natural  as  an  explanatory  clause  of  a  later 
writer.     We,  however,  face  a  real  problem. ^^     Are  the  marks 

"  Oettli  adds:  "The  removal  of  the  high  places  under  Hezekiah,  2  K.  18:  4; 
21:  3,  even  if  temporary,  must  have  been  based  on  Deuteronomy.  .  .  In  short  2  K. 
18:  6,  referring  to  the  reform  under  Hezekiah,  employs  a  characteristically 
Deuteronomic  phrase,  viz.,  'he  kept  his  commandments  which  Jehovah  commanded 
Moses'.  .  .  If  Hezekiah  had  not  known  the  Deuteronomic  prohibition  of  the 
high  places,  he  would  either  not  have  proceeded  against  them,  or  would  have 
shared  the  common  view  of  their   legality". 

"  Since  the  pre-Josianic  prophets  rarely  quote  from  J  and  E,  consistency 
would  require  the  Grafians  to  place  these  codes,  not  in  the  eighth  century,  but  in 
the   sixth   cent.  B.   C.     The  argument     e  silentio   signally   fails   here,   as   generally. 

"  Oettli  (who  accepts  some  form  of  the  critical  analysis)  regards  the  ten- 
dency of  the  Grafians  to  limit  the  aim  of  Deuteronomy  almost  exclusively  to  the 
centralization  of  the  worship  as  one-sided.  "Das  ist  eiyie  seiner  Forderungen,  aber 
weder  die  urspruenglichste,  noch  auch  die  wichtigste,  sondern  nur  ein  Ausfluss 
seiner    Verticfung   dcs   Bundesgedankens"    (op.    cit.,    21). 

5s  Since  the  custom  of  supplementing  the  text  by  foot-notes  was  unknown  in 
ancient  times,  additional  matter  was  incorporated  in  the  text.  Thus  in  Herodotus 
(Bk.  I,  125),  the  narrative  of  Cyrus  is  interrupted  by  a  description  of  the  Persian 
tribes.  Those  who  claim  a  direct  Mosaic  authorship  allow  that  the  last  eight 
verses  and  some   others   are   later   additions. 


ANTIQUITY   OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE.  263 

of  a  post-Mosaic  age  so  numerous  as  to  forbid  an  early  origin  of 
the  underlying  sources  ?  Of  the  discrepancies  urged  by  Driver, 
some  have  real,  others  only  apparent,  force. 

(i).  The  first  of  Driver's  objections  is  that  "the  differ- 
ences between  the  laws  of  Deut.  and  those  of  Exodus  21-23 
tend  to  show  that  the  two  codes  are  separated  from  each  other 
by  a  considerable  interval  of  time"  (p.,  XLVI).  Now  it  has 
always  been  held  that  Ex.  20-23,  constitute  the  moral  and  civil 
code.  Then  came  the  so-called  Priest  Code  (Ex.  25-40),  the 
whole  of  Leviticus  and  most  of  Numbers,  relating  to  the  sanc- 
tuary and  ritual.  Finally,  nearly  forty  years  after  the  Exodus, 
the  third  stratum,  known  as  the  Deuteronomic  code,  was  pro- 
mulgated by  Moses  in  the  plains  of  Moab.  This  latter  code, 
looking  forward  to  conditions  in  Canaan,  was  both  a  recapitu- 
lation and  an  expansion  of  the  original  organic  law.  So  far 
forth  there  is  truth  in  Driver's  position.  All  parties  agree  that 
both  JE  and  D  are  prophetic  and  that  Moses  was  endowed 
with  the  prophetic  spirit.  Deuteronomy,  as  both  legalistic  and 
prophetic,  might  on  antecedent  grounds  be  regarded  as  the 
work  of  the  prophetic  lawgiver. 

i  But  Driver  urges  that  the  modifications  in  Deuteronomy  are 
"adapted  to  meet  the  needs  of  a  more  developed  state  of  society" 
than  at  the  Exodus.  If,  however,  as  shown  above,  the  Hebrews  at 
the  Exodus  were  not  the  ignorant  horde  of  the  Grafian  critics,  and 
if,  moreover,  the  legislation  is  to  some  extent  anticipatory,  the  argu- 
ment of  Driver  is  illicit.  Apart  from  a  dozen  or  so  passages,  generally 
conceded  as  later  insertions,  the  plea  of  Driver  and  Holzinger  is  not 
of  such  a  character  as  to  disprove  the  essential  Mosaicity  as  to  matter 
and  form. 

(2).  Again,  says  Driver,  "the  law  of  the  kingdom,  {ly: 
14-20)  is  colored  by  reminiscenses  of  the  monarchy  of  Solo- 
mon". But  this  law  contemplates  the  time  when  the  demand 
for  a  king  would  arise.  "With  the  knowledge  of  what  the 
kings  of  Egypt  and  Canaan  were,  what  less  could  have  been 
expected  of  such  a  man  as  Moses,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact 
that  our  book  represents  him  as  a  prophet?"  (Bissell,  p.,  142). 
Moreover,  certain  things  in  the  law  would  have  been  meaning- 
less in  the  seventh  century,  as  the  injunction  that  no  foreigner 
should  be  chosen,  or  that  the  people  should  not  be  led  back  to 
Eg>'pt.  The  people  of  Samuel's  time  seem  to  know  the  law, 
for  they  employ  Deuteronomic  langauge,  "make  us  a  king  to 
judge  us  like  all  the  nations"  (i  S.  8:  5).  It  is  probable,  too, 
that  the  word  "testimony"  (2  K.  11  :  12),  occurring  in  the  ac- 


264  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

count  of  Joash's  coronation  (837)  implies  the  existence  of  this 
book.«* 

(3).  "The  forms  of  idolatry  alluded  to,  especially  the  wor- 
ship of  the  host  of  heaven  (4:  10;  17:  3)  point  to  a  date  not 
earlier  than  the  second  half  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C."  (Dri- 
ver). But  "it  is  indisputable  that  sun,  moon  and  star  wor- 
ship was  one  of  the  most  primitive  and  universal  forms  of 
idolatry  among  the  leading  nations  with  which  the  Hebrews 
during  the  Mosaic  period  came  into  contact.  .  .  Hence,  so  far 
from  finding  it  strange  that  we  meet  with  an  alleged  Mosaic 
law  of  this  sort  in  Deuteronomy,  we  should  think  it  strange  if 
under  the  circumstances  supposed  it  were  not  there."    (Bissell). 

(4).  The  phrase  "beyond  the  Jordan",  says  Driver,  means 
East  of  the  Jordan  and  so  implies  that  the  author  was  a  resi- 
dent of  Western  Palestine.  The  Hebrew,  literally  "at  the 
crossing  of",  is  in  itself  colorless,  and  so  demands  some  quali- 
fying word  to  determine  the  exact  force.  It  occurs  ten  times 
in  Deuteronomy :  1:1,5;  3  :  8,  20,  25  ;  4 :  41,  46,  47,  49 ;  11: 
30.  In  3 :  20,  25 ;  and  1 1  :  30,  the  standpoint  of  the  writer  is 
clearly  East  of  the  Jordan.  The  remaining  passages  are  gen- 
erally accompanied  by  some  limiting  clause,  as  "on  this  side 
Jordan  in  the  land  of  Moab".  The  phrase  being  ambiguous 
cannot  be  quoted  either  way. 

Even  if  the  alleged  discrepancies  should  in  part  be  allowed, 
they  pertain  to  such  a  relatively  small  part  of  the  book  as  not 
to  impair  the  essential  integrity. ^^ 

8.  The  Closing  Chapters. 

While  the  divisive  critics  assign  chaps,  i — 26,  and  28  to 
the  Deuteronomist,  they  parcel  out  the  remaining  parts  to  a 
variety  of  sources.^® 

( I ) .  The  Song  of  Moses.  Both  the  date  and  the  author- 
ship of  the  so-called  "Song  of  Moses",  32:  1-43,  are  variously 


**  Driver  allows  that  "the  nucleus  of  the  law  may  be  ancient"  and  that  the 
prohibition  of  a  "foreigner"  "may  well  be  an  old  one".  Oettli  says:  "Das  Koe- 
nigsgesetz  enthaelt  rein  nichts,  was  den  Verdacht  spaeterer  Einfuegung  recht- 
fertigte". 

"  Puukko,  the  most  recent  critic  on  Deuteronomy  (Das  Deuteronomium, 
1910),  holds  that  the  Josianic  or  original  Deuteronomy  contained  only  parts  of 
chapters  12,  14,  15,  26,  16,  17,  13,  18,  23,  19,  the  remainder  being  added  later. 
He  finds  fault  in  one  point  or  another  with  practically  all  the  earlier  and  later 
critics,   and  at  the  end  of  his  analysis  we  have  a  meager  skeleton  of  late  date. 

"  According  to  Driver,  2y:  4-7;  31:  14,  15,  2^;  34:  1-6,  fall  to  JE.  Driver 
formerly  gave  ch.  32  to  JE.  More  recently  he  says:  "more  probably  from  an 
unknown  source".  So  also  33  is  "of  unknown  origin".  32:  48-52;  34:  i,  8-9, 
fall  to  P.     The  rest  is  assigned  in  general  to  D. 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  265 

assigned.  The  line  of  thought  and  the  phraseology  of  the 
poem",  says  Driver,  "point  to  an  age  much  later  than  that  of 
Moses".  On  the  other  hand  Dillmann  says:  'The  Jehovist 
must  have  regarded  it  as  handed  down  under  the  name  of 
Mos€S.  If  we  recall  that  other  pieces  passed  under  the  name 
of  Moses  (Deut.  33;  Ps.  90),  which  indeed  are  not  from  the 
same  author,  but  yet  have  points  of  contact  in  linguistic  phe- 
nomena, we  are  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  prophetic 
circles  of  the  Northern  kingdom  there  existed  in  early  times 
prayers  and  admonitions  associated  with  the  name  and  author- 
ity of  Moses  and  that  later  writers  drew  from  such  older 
sources."  Of  all  critics,  Klostermann^'  has  given  the  most 
elaborate  analysis  and  reached  the  conclusion  that  it  was  "none 
other  than  Moses  whom  Jehovah  through  a  special  revelation 
concerning  the  future  course  of  Israel's  history  inspired  to 
write  the  poem"  and  that  "the  children  of  Israel  treasured  it 
in  their  memories".  In  fact,  "the  song  lays  claim  to  being  un- 
derstood in  no  other  way  than  as  indicated  in  31  :  16-22  and 
was  from  the  first  ever  transmitted  with  the  statement  that  it 
was  written  by  Moses  as  a  witness  for  the  future"  (op.  cit., 
366). =» 

(2)  The  Blessing  of  Moses.  The  fact  that  the  dates  as- 
signed by  the  divisive  critics  to  the  "Blessing  of  Moses",  Deut. 
33,  differ  some  seven  or  eight  centuries,  affords  a  striking 
illustration  of  some  of  the  uncertainties  of  the  Higher,  or  Liter- 
ary Historical  criticism.  Of  two  equally  competent  Hebrew 
scholars  and  lexicographers,^^  one  assigns  the  authorship  to  a 
writer  of  the  Babylonian  Exile,  the  other  to  Moses  himself. 

Nor  are  critics  able  to  decide  whether  the  poem  stands  in 
J,  E,  D,  P,  or  some  other  stratum.  Some  assign  it  to  an 
altogether  independent  source.  It  must  be  confessed  that  the 
conclusions  of  criticism  here  are  mutually  destructive;  with 
equal  assurance  Graf  and  Stade  assign  it  to  the  age  of  Jeroboam 
II,  Kleinert  and  Koenig  to  that  of  the  Judges. 

Though  critics  are  wholly  at  sea  as  to  the  date,  they  in 
general  incline  to  the  view  that  the  poem  contains  very  early 

"  In   "Der  Pentateuch,    1,    1893;     and   II,    1907. 

"'  Volck  claims  that  Klostermann  has  established  absolutely  his  thesis  (Der 
Segen  Mose's,  168).  "The  Song  must  have  been  old  enough  to  be  currently  at- 
tributed  to   Moses   when   31:    16-22   was   written"    (Driver). 

°*  The  former  is  Gesenius,  author  of  a  Hebrew  lexicon;  the  latter,  Volck,  one 
of  the  later  editors  of  the  same  lexicon,  who  wrote  a  learned  brochure  of  nearly 
200  pages  on  "Der  Segen  Mose's",  adducing  linguistic  and  archaeological  proof  of 
the   Mosaic  origin. 


266  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

strata.^*^  "That  the  Song  is  very  ancient  and  unique  is  univer- 
sally admitted.  In  view  of  the  rich  and  characteristic  diction 
one  is  disposed  to  assign  it  a  high  antiquity ;  but  the  only  cer- 
tain datum  is  that  it  implies  the  occupation  of  Canaan.  No 
decisive  ground,  in  my  judgment,  exists  against  placing  it  in 
the  early  years  of  David's  reign".  "Though  not  Mosaic,  the 
Blessing  is  certainly  ancient"   (Driver). 

After  an  exhaustive  examination  of  the  dates  assigned  by 
critics,  Volck  reaches  the  conclusion  that  "a  whole  series  of 
data"  in  the  poem  itself  points  to  the  Mosaic  age  as  the  best 
attested.  The  Blessing  was  incorporated  in  the  book  when  the 
final  chapters  were  compiled.  Though  Volck  wrote  in  1873 
he  anticipated  substantially  the  position  of  the  later  negative 
criticism.®^ 

9.  Ancient  Strata  in  Deuteronomy. 

It  is  allowed  by  all  except  the  most  radical  critics  that  very 
ancient  strata  are  imbedded  in  Deuteronomy  (Dillmann,  Koe- 
nig,  Kittel,  Oettli,  Klostermann).  According  to  Dill.,  Deuter- 
onomy contains  old  and  genuinely  Mosaic  material,  and  not 
merely  expansions  of  laws  in  JE  (Driver).  These  ancient  rec- 
ords are  lost,  but  we  can  affirm  that  they  formed  the  basis  of 
considerable  parts  of  the  book.  "Special  references  to  old  stat- 
utes occur:  thus  the  formula,  'as  Jehovah  hath  spoken'  (6:  19; 
9:3;  II  :  25)  doubtless  implies  a  written  source;  so  also  10: 
9;  18:  2,  Levi's  inheritance,  must  be  a  citation".  Oetth  says: 
"Our  investigation  shows  that  the  author  drew  from  ancient 
written  sources,  which  in  many  cases  demonstrably  go  back 
to  the  Mosaic  period".  According  to  Koenig  Deuteronomy 
contains  older  and  later  material,  part  of  which  arose  in  the 
period  of  the  Judges. ^^ 

The  theory  of  a  genuinely  Mosaic  substratum    (adopted 


*''  Volck  writes:  "Wenn  sie  [die  neuere  Kritik]  uns  bald  die  Zeit  der  Rich- 
ter,  bald  die  des  beginnenden  Koenigthums,  bald  die  des  ersten,  bald  die  des 
zweiten  Jerobeam,  bald  die  des  Koenigs  Josia  empfiehlt,  so  geht  doch  aus  solch 
unsicherem  Herumtasten  hervor,  dass  die  Segenssprueche  im  Ganzen  in  einer 
grossen  Unbestimmtheit  und  Allgemeinheit  gehalten  sein  muessen.  Denn  wie 
erklaerte  sich's  sonst,  dass  man  bald  auf  diese,  bald  auf  jene  Zeit  verfaellt?"  (op. 
cit.,    154). 

^1  Critics  who  ascribe  the  Blessing  to  Moses,  admit  that  some  verses,  as  i,  2, 
5,  27,   28,   are   later   additions. 

"  Klostermann,  who  pursues  an  independent  course  over  against  the  new 
views  as  well  as  the  old,  argues  that  according  to  content  and  literary  form,  the 
book  arose  in  the  INloses-David  period.  The  fact  that  neither  Jerusalem  nor 
Samaria,  neither  temple  nor  priests,  kings  nor  prophets,  are  mentioned,  and  that 
the  hypothesis  of  a  "muessigcn  schriftstellerischen  Luege"  is  not  to  he  thought 
of,  compel  the  inference,  that  the  substance  of  the  book  goes  back  "bis  an  die 
klassische   und  vorbildliche  Zeit   des  Mose". 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  267 

here)  i.  e.  of  sources  and  documents  reaching  to  the  Mosaic 
and  Joshuanic  age,  differs  radically  from  the  evolutionistic 
hypothesis,  according  to  which  there  were  no  documents  until 
the  monarchical  period,  and  according  to  extremists  no  such 
legislator  as  Moses.  The  ordinary  naturalistic  hypothesis  is 
to  the  effect  that  in  some  way  unknown  to  the  Grafians,  the 
name  of  Moses  came  to  be  associated  with  the  fundamental 
laws  of  Israel;  and  so  some  genius  of  the  Manasseh-Josiah 
age,  boldly  manufactured  Deuteronomy  5 — 26  (or  12 — 26), 
"out  of  the  whole  cloth",  assuming  that  his  readers  would  be 
such  simpletons  as  not  to  be  able  to  detect  the  deception.  Cre- 
dat  Jiidaeiis  Apella!  ! 

The  theory  which  upon  the  whole  seems  best  supported  is 
that  some  editor,  having  access  to,  and  desiring  to  bring  into 
systematic  shape,  the  scattered  records  of  the  last  acts  and 
words  of  Moses,  wrote  out  the  so-called  Deuteronomic  code, 
that  is  substantially  the  present  book  of  Deuteronomy. 

Two  points  are  not  capable  of  exact  determination :  i,  the 
date  of  the  editor ;  2,  the  component  parts  of  the  original  Deu- 
teronomy. Neither  the  age  of  Josiah,  nor  that  of  Manasseh 
meets  the  conditions  of  the  problem.  More  can  be  said  in  favor 
of  the  age  of  Hezekiah.  But  if  we  go  back  thus  far,  the  same 
reasons  justify  a  much  earHer  date.  And  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  bulk  of  the  matter  suits  the  period  of  the  Judges  and 
indeed  the  early  part  of  it,  and  since  four-fifths  of  the  book 
have  no  relevancy  to  conditions  in  the  monarchical  period,  the 
essential  contents  must  have  originated  in  the  Moses-Joshua, 
and  the  remainder  in  the  Joshua-Samuel  period.  It  would 
seem  that  the  first  four  and  last  eight  chapters  were  integral 
parts  of  the  book  almost  from  the  first. ^^ 

10.  The  Transmission  of  Deuteronomy. 

How  was  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  transmitted  to  the 
time  of  Josiah?  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  Hebrews 
exercised  the  same  care  as  the  Egyptians  and  Babylonians  in 


*2  If  according  to  the  naturalistic  critics,  the  whole  Mosaic  age  has  been 
"wiped  out"  through  the  post-Exilic  date  of  the  Priest  Code  (Duhm),  the  logical 
inference  is  that  no  such  book  as  Deuteronomy  could  have  originated  in  that 
age.  The  Grafians  are  driven  by  the  terms  of  their  hypothesis  to  predicate  a  late 
date.  According  to  the  Vatke-Kuenen-Wellhausen  philosophy  of  history,  the  book 
must  on  a  priori  grounds  be  late.  We  have  here  a  species  of  dogmatism  sur- 
passing anything  ever  charged  against  the  old  view.  The  Grafians  of  course  do 
not  allow  that  the  real  motive  of  pleading  for  a  late  date  is  to  save  their  arbitrary 
IX  IX  IX  IX 

schematism  that  J+J-f  J-f-E  +  E  +  E+D  +  D  +  D  +  P+P -|-P+  a  score  of  redactors, 
equal  the  Pentateuch,  but  their  line  of  argument  invariably  starts  from,  and  ends 
with,   this   assumption. 


268  ANTIQUITY   OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

preserving  copies  of  their  sacred  books  in  sanctuaries.  There 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  official  copies  of  the  Hebrew  scrip- 
tures from  the  time  of  Joshua  onward  were  deposited  at  Bethel, 
Shechem,  Shiloh  and  other  places  for  safe  keeping.^*  From 
the  time  of  Solomon  the  sacred  writings  as  well  as  the  state 
chronicles  were  deposited  in  the  Temple.  The  correctness  of 
this  view  has  recently  received  support  from  an  unexpected 
quarter. 

Prof.  E.  Naville,  the  Egyptologist,  has  suggested  that 
just  as  it  was  an  established  custom  of  the  Egyptians  to  deposit 
copies  of  their  sacred  books  in  the  foundation-walls  of  tem- 
ples, so  Solomon  deposited  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  in  the 
Temiple.®^  His  point  of  departure  is  the  discovery  of  Egyptian 
texts  of  parts  of  the  ''Book  of  the  Dead"  in  the  temple  at  Her- 
mopolis.  In  a  papyrus  we  read:  "This  chapter  was  found  in 
the  foundations  of  (the  god)  Amihunnu  by  the  overseer  of  the 
men  who  built  a  wall,  in  the  time  of  king  Usaphais".  Naville 
shows  that  it  was  the  custom  not  only  in  Egypt  but  in  Asia 
Minor,  in  the  temple  of  Ephesus  and  at  other  places,  to  deposit 
writings  at  the  foot  of  statues  of  gods  and  within  the  founda- 
tion walls.^®  Other  writers  have  referred  to  the  same  fact. 
Naville  concludes  that  the  "book  of  the  Law",  found  in  the 
Temple  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  was  Deuteronomy,  a  copy  of 
which  had  been  deposited  in  the  walls  during  the  reign  of 
Solomon.^^ 

«*  The  account  of  the  bringing  up  of  the  ark  from  Zion  to  the  Temple  refers 
specifically  only  to  the  "two  tables  of  stone  which  Moses  put  there  at  Horeb"  (i 
K.  8:  9),  because  the  law  as  the  testimony  of  Jehovah  was  of  prime  importance. 
That  other  writings  were  subsequently  deposited  there  is  probable. 

^*  Proceedings  of  the  Soc.  of  Bib.  Archae.,  1907,  and  Comptes-rendus  de 
I'Academie,    1909. 

«8  "It  is  not  under  the  statues  only  that  books  were  deposited.  Another 
rubric  teaches  us  that  such  writings  were  put  in  the  foundation  v/alls  .  .  .,  books, 
which,  in  their  hiding-place  could  be  preserved  for  centuries  and  discovered  only 
long  after  they  had  been  deposited  in  the  masonry"  (Proceedings,  239).  Amelia 
B.  Edwards  writes:  "At  Denderah  there  is  a  chamber  especially  set  apart  for  the 
sacred  writings,  and  its  walls  are  sculptured  all  over  with  a  catalogue  raisonnee 
of  the  manuscript  treasure  of  the  Temple.  .  .  .  Every  temple  had  its  library,  and 
as  the  Egyptian  books,  being  written  on  papyrus  or  leather,  occupied  but  little 
space,  the  rooms  appointed  to  this  purpose  were  generally  small"  (A  Thousand 
Miles   Up   the  Nile). 

"  "Now,  I  ask:  is  there  not  the  greatest  analogy  between  this  text  (2  K.  22) 
and  that  which  was  found  at  Denderah?  Josiah  makes  considerable  repairs  in  the 
temple,  or  as  an  Egyptian  would  say,  he  renews  the  building  to  the  Lord.  For 
that  work  he  gathers  carpenters,  builders  and  masons.  The  first  thing  they  have 
to  do  is  to  use  hewn  stones  for  building  walls  which  were  in  a  very  shaky  state, 
or,  as  the  text  says,  they  were  to  repair  the  breaches  of  the  house  (2  K.  22:  5). 
.  .  .  Evidently  the  book  came  out  of  one  of  these  old  and  falling  walls  which 
must  have  belonged  to  the  foundations  of  the  construction.  There  is  no  reason 
why  the  Hebrews  should  not  have  put  a  book  which  they  particularly  valued  in 
the  foundation  wall  of  the  temple.  The  foundation  of  the  temple  means  the  work 
of  Solomon.  So  that  I  have  no  hesitation  in  giving  to  the  passage  this  inter- 
pretation"  (Proceed.,  p.,   241). 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  269 

Something  can  be  said  in  favor  of  this  hypothesis,  especial- 
ly if  extended  to  include  other  writings.  Solomon  as  a  patron 
of  letters  would  take  steps  to  preserve  the  old  records  and 
Scriptures.  He  may  even  have  been  the  first  to  gather  the 
sacred  books  into  a  kind  of  canon.  In  any  event,  having  imi- 
tated the  custom  of  foreign  courts  in  other  respects,  he  must  be 
supposed  to  have  desired  even  to  surpass  them  in  the  conserva- 
tion of  the  national  literature.^^  If,  according  to  Naville,  Sol- 
omon deposited  Deuteronomy,  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  took 
measures  to  preserve  other  books,  as  the  Covenant  Code,  the 
Song  of  Deborah  and  others,  in  short  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua 
and  Judges,  as  they  then  stood.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  limit 
the  deposit  of  books  to  the  foundation  walls.  The  greater 
number  were  doubtless  placed  in  the  chambers  and  archives  sur- 
rounding the  temple. ^^ 

D.   THE    PROBLEM    OF    THE    PRIEST    CODE. 

Having  reviewed  the  J,  E,  and  D  codes,  we  proceed  to 
a  still  more  difficult  undertaking,  namely  the  determination  of 
the  character  and  age  of  the  Priest  Code,  P.  (See  general 
description  chap.  I).  It  will  be  recalled  that  the  Graf-Well- 
hausen  school  regard  this  document  as  post-Exilic  (445),  the 
Dillmann-Kittel  school  as  pre-Exilic  (circa  800  B.  C.).  We 
limit  ourselves  to  the  points  bearing  on  its  age  and  relation  to 
other  codes,  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  the  under- 
lying strata  of  the  Pentateuch  may  not  after  all  have  originated 
in  the  Moses-Joshua  period. '^'^ 

I.  Graf-Wellhausen  Philosophy  of  History. 

It  is  necessary  here  to  state  the  philosophy  of  history  un- 
derlying the  Grafian  criticism.     On  the  one  hand  we  have  the 

_  *8  Commenting  on  Naville's  argument,  Kittei  remarks  that  the  question  of 
Josiah's  law-book  "ist  natuerlich  damit  nicht  ohne  weiteres  eriedigt.  Aber  es  ist 
uns  eine  ueberaus  wichtige  neue  Hilfe  fuer  ihre  Loesung  in  die  Hand  gegeben" 
(Ori.  Auzgrab.,  etc.,  p.,  43). 

^*  Naville  claims,  further,  that  the  law-book  of  Josiah  was  written  in  the 
Ass.  language  and  the  cuneiform  characters.  We  are  unable  to  follow  him  in 
this  regard,  our  reasons  being  given  above  (chap.  XI).  "According  to  the  tenor 
of  the  texts  themselves  the  Book  of  the  law  does  not  appear  to  have  been  incom- 
prehensible to  any  one.  Consequently,  there  is  no  necessity  for  supposing  it  to 
have  been  written  in  an  unknown  language  or  in  unknown  characters"  (E.  Mon- 
tet.   Bib.    World,    Nov.,    1910). 

""  Since  the  Grafian  critics  with  few  exceptions  constantly  ignore  the  Dill- 
mann  arguments  for  the  early  date  of  P,  we  consider  it  opportune  to  present  his 
views.  One  might  suppose  from  their  silence,  that  Cheyne,  Carpenter,  Kent, 
the  Smiths  (W.  R.,  G.  A,  and  H.  P.)  and  the  Grafians  generally  (except  Hol- 
zinger)  had  never  heard  of  Dillmann.  The  art.  "Hexateuch"  (Wellh.-CTheyne) 
in  Ency.  Bib.  never  once  refers  to  Dillmann,  not  even  in  the  literature.  The 
majority  of  American  books  on  O.  T.  criticism  are  equally  narrow.  And  yet 
Dillmann,  according  to  Halevy,  was  "sans  cotitredit  le  premier  exegete  de  notre 
siecle"  (Revue  Sem.,   V,   p.,   s^s)- 


270  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Hegelian  panlogism,  according  to  which  all  religion  (that  of 
the  O.  T.  included)  is  of  human  origin,  "a  devolopment  of  the 
human  spirit"  (Vatke).  On  the  other  we  have  the  monistic, 
evolutionistic  hypothesis  of  the  events  of  history.  "When  the 
natural  sciences  attained  all  manner  of  brilliant  results  through 
the  application  of  the  inductive  method,  the  wish  arose  in  many 
breasts  that  history  might  be  studies  after  the  same  rnethod, 
and  thus  reach  equally  certain  results.  There  was  ultimately 
only  one  science,  that  of  nature.  .  .  It  is  silently  presupposed 
that,  in  the  last  analysis,  one  and  the  same  causality  originates 
all  events  and  causes  them  to  succeed  each  other  according  to 
the  law  of  progressive  development  in  a  straight,  upward  line. 
Monism  and  evolution  are  the  principles  of  the  modern  viev/  of 
history"   (Bavinck,  Phil,  of  Revelation,  pp.,  113,  117). 

There  are  two  fatal  defects  in  this  hypothesis:  i,  its  ad- 
vocates are  unable  to  explain  how  free  human  agency  and  per- 
sonality are  controlled  by  laws  of  nature ;  2,  it  is  not  sustained 
by  the  facts  of  history.  The  hypothesis  overlooks  the  fact  that 
in  history  we  must  take  account  of  the  will  and  motives  of  men 
(to  say  nothing  of  the  Supreme  Personality,  God).'^^  Society 
is  not  a  biological  organism,  but  an  organization  in  which  the 
personal  element  is  ever  active.  The  hypothesis  of  a  uniform  ad- 
vance in  civilization  and  religion  is  not  verified  by  the  history  of 
any  ancient  people.  Otto  Weber  writes:  ''The  dogma  of  a 
gradual  development  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  level  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  history  of  the  Oriental  peoples.  History  leaves 
upon  us,  on  the  contrary,  the  impression  of  decadence  rather 
than  of  advancing  civilization,  which  tries  to  find  fixed  forms ; 
everywhere  in  art,  science  and  religion,  this  is  confirmed" 
(Theol.  II.  AssyriologieJ. 

This  monistic  (i.  e.  anti-theistic),  evolutionistic,  biological 
conception  of  history  underlies  much  of  the  current  Old  Testa- 
ment criticism  and  crops  out  everywhere,  but  especially  in  the 
Grafian  view  of  the  Prist  Code.^^ 

2.  Graf-Welllmusen  Hypothesis  of  the  Priest  Code. 

Wellhausen  is  sponser  for  the  statement  that  Vatke  and 
George  ''have  the  honor  of  being  the  first  by  whom  the  ques- 

■^1  "We  might  speak  of  evolution  in  families,  nations  or  humanity  if  men 
successively  increased  in  height,  in  size  and  weight,  in  stren^h  or  length  of  life, 
or  even  in  intellectual,  moral,  or  religious  capacity,  in  capability  of  culture.  But 
this  is  not  the  case"    (Bavinck,   p.,   ii8;. 

^^  Judging  from  the  public  prints,  one  would  infer  that  many  clergymen  (most- 
ly half-baked  youth,  or  others  with  a  smattering  of  philosophy),  adopt  the  above 
false  view  of  the  O.  T.  Such  men  never  get  beyond  what  they  call  "evolution", 
—  a  term  meaning  anything,   or  nothing. 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE.  27I 

tion  of  the  historical  sequence  of  the  several  stages  of  the  laws 
was  attacked  on  a  sound  method"  (Ency.  Bib.,  col.  2049),  *•  ^• 
the  Hegelian  dialectics.  He  adds :  "The  characteristic  feature 
of  the  hypotheses  of  Graf  is  that  the  Priestly  Code  is 
placed  later  than  Deuteronomy,  so  that  the  order  is  JE, 
D,  P."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  controlling  principle 
of  the  Grafian  criticism  is  a  naturalistic,  evolutionistic  philoso- 
phy of  history.  By  placing  P  at  the  end  of  the  series,  a  seem- 
ingly consistent  and  progressive  development  of  Israel's  history 
is  obtained  and  all  is  made  to  fall  in  with  the  pre-arranged 
schematism.  The  Grafians  delete,  or  post-date  all  troublesome 
passages. 

The  question  accordingly  is,  can  the  Grafians  prove  that 
P  is  the  latest  of  the  codes  and  so  establish  a  basis  for  eliminat- 
ing revelation,  inspiration  and  the  supernatural  from  the  Old 
Testament?  If  everything  in  the  Old  Testament  takes  place 
according  to  natural  law  and  evolutionistic  forces  in  man,  and 
if  in  short,  **God  has  been  politely  escorted  to  the  frontiers 
of  the  universe",  we  are  committed  to  the  baldest  naturalism 
and  pantheism.  In  view  of  the  gravity  of  the  issues,  we  dis- 
cuss briefly  the  real  nature  of  the  Grafian  tenets.'^^ 

3.  The  Central  Place  of  Worship. 

The  Grafians  hold  that  the  codes  imply  progress  from  the 
simple  to  the  complex  in  regard  to  the  place  of  worship.  JE, 
it  is  said,  permits  sacrifices  everywhere;  D  prescribes  one  cen- 
tral sanctuary  (Jerusalem)  ;  P  takes  the  latter  for  granted. 
Therefore  the  law  of  evolution  necessitates  a  post-Exilic  date 
for  P.  But  Korah's  rebellion.  Num.  16 :  8  f ,  implies  a  conflict 
between  priests  and  Levites.  While  the  centralization  of  wor- 
ship is  not  directly  involved,  the  exclusion  of  the  Levites  from 
sacrificial  service  implies  a  period  when  their  standing  was  a 
subject  of  dispute.  Everything  here  points  to  a  comparatively 
early  date. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  maintain  (Wellh.)  that  the  demand  for 
centralization  did  not  arise  before  Josiah.  Such  an  attempt 
was  made  by  Hezekiah  90  years  earlier ;   in  fact  from  the  time 


'3  Of  course  the  Grafians  in  general  do  not  allow  that  their  critical  views  are 
in  any  way  the  outgrowth  of  a  preconceived  philosophy  of  history;  but  it  is  a 
remarkable  fact  that  few  of  them  are  avowed  and  consistent  theists,  or  accept 
the  doctrine  of  revelation  and  inspiration  in  the  special  sense.  Monism  (as  us- 
ually held)   and  theism  are  incompatible. 


2.'J2  ANTIQUITY  OF    HEBREW    LITERATURE, 

of  Solomon,  Jerusalem  and  its  Temple  were  regarded  as  the 
central  place  of  worship.'^* 

The  classical  passage  in  this  connection,  Ex.  20 :  24-6,  espe- 
cially the  clause,  "in  every  place  where  I  record  my  name  I  will 
come  unto  thee  and  bless  thee",  is  cited  as  proof  that  originally 
an  altar  might  be  erected  anywhere.  Wellhausen  argues  that 
not  one  central  sanctuary,  but  many  are  here  legalized.  This 
is  partly  correct ;  but  the  view  must  be  qualified  by  the  clause, 
"Where  I  record  my  name",  which  means  that  a  place  becomes 
sacred  through  a  revelation  of  Jehovah.  When  circumstances 
rendered  centralization  impossible,  the  place  chosen  by  Jehovah 
was  legitimated.  Ex.  23:  17,  19,  (J),  requiring  every  male 
to  appear  three  times  in  the  year  before  Jehovah,  implies  unity 
of  worship.  Without  question  the  central  sanctuary  is  meant. 
See  also  34:  23.  If  the  sanctuaries  had  been  numerous,  such 
a  command  would  appear  superfluous. 

It  is  alleged,  further,  that,  since  J  makes  no  provision  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  priests,  therefore  all  Israelites  could 
offer  sacrifice.  But  it  is  silent  also  as  to^  leprosy  and  circum- 
cision. Must  we  therefore  conclude  that  these  were  unknown 
In  the  10 — 9th  century?  In  fact,  however,  the  selection  of 
Aaron,  Nadab  and  Abihu  (Ex.  24)  looks  forward  to  a  priestly 
order.     (See  Vos,  Mosaic  Origin,  etc.,  pp.,  89-92). 

Again,  it  is  a  cardinal  tenet  of  the  Graf-Wellh.  school 
that  the  tabernacle  of  P  (Ex.  25-31,  35-40)  is  an  ideal  structure 
suggested  by  the  Temple  and  transferred  to  Mosaic  times.'^'* 
It  is  admitted  that  there  was  an  ark  of  the  covenant  and  per- 
haps a  simple  tent  covering  it,  but  it  is  denied  that  "a  band  of 
roving  shepherds,  even  though'  laden  with  the  spoils  of  Egypt, 
could  have  erected  the  magnificent  structure  of  Ex.  25-31" 
(Schultz).  But  since  Schultz's  time  it  has  been  shown  con- 
clusively that  the  Israelites  were  not  wild  Beduin,  but  semi- 
nomads  with  advanced  views.  Schultz  allows  that  the  taber- 
nacle was  a  strongly  constructed  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  in  the  time 
of  the  Judges.  "This  sanctuary  was  the  place  of  the  national 
worship  and  of  the  national  priesthood"  (0.  T.  Theol.  1,  212). 
Delitzsch,  Dillmann,  Bredenkamp,  Kittel,  Riehm,  Baudissin, 
and  Wiener  hold  that  there  arose  in  the  time  of  Moses  the  idea 


''*  "When  Amos  and  Hosea  speak  of  the  worship  performed  at  such  places  as 
Bethel,  and  Gilgal,  there  is  nothing  in  their  words  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that 
these  places  were  regarded  by  them  as  set  apart  by  any  divine  authority  as  places 
of   worship"    (Roberston,    Early    Relig.    Is.,   405). 

■^5  Reuss:     "Die    Stiftshuette   des    Priesterkodex    ist    eine    bare    Fiktion". 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE.  273 

of  a  central  sanctuary,  to  which  the  description  of  the  tent  of 
meeting  in  P  corresponds,  even  if  all  the  details  cannot  now  be 
established.'^® 

4.  Sanctuaries  in  the  Time  of  the  Judges. 

As  seen  above,  the  period  of  the  Judges  was  one  of  relig- 
ious syncretism,  good  and  bad,  normal  and  abnormal,  prepon- 
derating alternately.  The  cultus  of  these  centuries  is  but  an 
expression  of  the  life  of  the  community.  That  the  people  here 
and  there  fell  into  a  false  worship  is  no  proof  that  the  Mosaic 
institutions  were  unknown  or  that  there  was  no  central  sanc- 
tuary. The  idolatrous  sanctuary  of  Micah  (Jud.  17)  is  ex- 
plained by  the  fact  that  every  man  did  that  ''which  was  right  in 
his  own  eyes" ;  and  the  condemnation  of  Gideon's  false  worship 
(8:  2y)  has  meaning  only  on  the  assumption  of  a  legal  central 
sanctuary.  That  this  sanctuary  was  at  Shiloh  is  to  be  inferred 
from  Jer.  7 :  12.  Shiloh,  centrally  located,  was  a  town  of  con- 
siderable size  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  (Jud.  20:  49)  ;  hence 
its  selection  by  Joshua  as  a  resting-place  for  the  ark  and  taber- 
nacle. Having  fallen  into  idolatry,  it  was  discredited  in  the 
last  days  of  Eli  (i  S.  4)  " 

5.  Theory  of  SacriUce. 

According  to  Wellhausen,  P's  theory  of  sacrifice  fits  in 
only  with  a  post-Exilic  date.  It  is  probable  that  the  ritual  was 
not  always  carried  out.  But  the  ground-work  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  laws  of  sacrifice  existed  in  oral,  if  not  in  written  form, 
from  the  earliest  times.  ''Occasional  sacrifices  brought  by  in- 
dividuals, which  the  historical  books  are  specially  fond  of  relat- 
ing, may  have  been  offered  loosely  and  according  to  peculiar 
ancient  traditions,  especially  in  the  remoter  periods."  (Kittel, 
Hist.,  I,  112).  When  Isaiah  (ch.  i)  and  the  early  prophets 
demand  a  true,  heart-sacrifice,  it  must  be  inferred  that  men 
were  prone  to  rest  content  with  an  elaborate  ritual.'^® 


^'  "The  laws  of  JE  recognize  a  plurality  of  altars,  and,  as  these  are  for  pur- 
poses of  lay  sacrifice,  we  may  properly  term  them  lay  altars;  but  this  does  not 
justify  us  in  saying  that  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries  is  here  permitted.  .  .  If  we 
find  many  lay  altars,  we  also  know  of  a  house  of  the  Lord  at  Shiloh  at  which 
sacrifices  were  performed  with  the  assistance  of  a  priesthood."  (H.  M.  Wiener, 
"Origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.,  64).  See,  also,  same  author  in  "Essays  in  Pen- 
tateuchal  Criticism." 

"  Wellhausen  gets  rid  of  the  troublesome  passages  (Josh.  18:  i;  19:  51; 
22;  Jud.  19,  etc.,)  by  simply  deleting  them;  i  S.  he  pronounces  a  late  vatictni- 
um  post  eventum.  He,  however,  admits  that  Jer.  7:  12  implies  that  the  sanc- 
tuary at  Shiloh  was  regarded  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Solomonic  Temple. 

''^  Israel  came  out  of  a  country  which  in  the  time  of  Moses  had  prescribed 
forms  of  worship  and  sacrifice.  In  Babylonia,  rules  for  sacrifice  were  known 
from  the  earliest  times.  Can  we  believe  that  with  the  natural  desire  for  decorum, 
18 


274  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

6.  Special  Features  of  the  Priest  Code. 

We  notice  some  peculiarities  of  the  Priest  Code  which  tend 
to  show  that  it  is  early,  or  at  least  has  early  strata. 

(i).  The  Language  and  Style  of  P.  The  language  of 
P  is  classis  in  the  best  sense,  and  so  may  be  early  rather  than 
late."^^  The  question  cannot  be  settled  absolutely,  for  we  have 
no  absolute  criterion.  Dillmann  writes:  *'Why  such  expres- 
sions (cited  by  Wellh.)  should  be  late  is  not  evident.  We 
have  no  right  to  assume  that  in  the  early  regal  period  men 
lacked  the  culture  to  make  such  distinctions  in  words  and 
thought.  From  the  fact  that  many  of  these  expressions  occur 
only  in  late  literature,  their  lateness  is  not  yet  established.  How 
many  priestly  writings  have  we  from  the  period  of  the  kings 
that  men  can  decide  so  confidently?  Only  some  H  fragments 
and  laws,  and  these  exhibit  the  same  phenomena.  The  later 
writers  who  recognize  P  as  authoritative  were  naturally  influ- 
enced by  its  language".  Dillmann  denies  that  Aramaisms  and 
late  expressions  occur  in  P.  Other  marks  of  decaying  He- 
brew, such  as  found,  e.  g.  in  Jeremiah,  cannot  be  established.®^ 

(2).  The  Material  of  P.  It  is  incredible  that  chapter  af- 
ter chapter  in  P,  describing  the  sacred  vessels,  their  use  and 
removal  from  place  to  place  during  the  life  in  the  wilderness, 
could  have  originated  in  a  period  which  had  not  the  slightest 
interest  in  such  things.  But  in  early  times,  when  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  still  stood  in  the  tabernacle  and  the  accounts  of  the 
worship  of  a  former  age  were  preserved,  it  is  natural  that  the 
priestly  and  Levitical  families,  whose  ancestors  had  ministered 
at  the  sacred  places,  would  seek  to  transmit  the  old  customs. 
The  matter  of  P  does  not  indicate  an  Exilic  or  post-Exilic  date. 
The  table  of  nations  in  Gen.  10  and  36  fits  in  only  with  an  early 


the  Israelitish  priests  were  the  only  ones  in  all  the  world  without  a  regular  ritual 
until  the  Exile  (when  in  fact  there  was  no  place  for  such  a  ritual)  ?  The  lan- 
guage of  the  prophetical  and  historical  books  lends  no  support  to  such  a  view. 

''^  Prof.  A.  T.  Clay,  Amurru,  p.,  32,  note,  says:  "The  writer  is  one  of  the 
small  minority  who  believes  that  Hebraic  (or  Amoraic)  literature,  as  well  as 
Aramaic,  has  a  great  antiquity  prior  to  the  first  millennium  B.  C." 

^0  "The  language  of  P  has  few  marks  of  a  post-Exilic  date,  especially  of 
expressions  which  can  positively  be  affirmed  as  Aramaisms.  To  be  sure,  books 
were  written  in  pure  Hebrew  even  after  the  Return;  but  they  are  Psalms  and 
prophetical  works,  which  follow  the  old  models.  That  after  the  Exile,  historical 
and  legal  works  of  the  type  of  P  would  be  written  without  Aramaisms  and  other 
evidences  of  a  dying  language  is  rendered  improbable  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  in 
which  the  Hebrew  is  no  longer  pure.  P,  far  from  containing  many  late  words, 
is  characterized  by  a  vocabulary  and  diction  of  the  early  period.  The  body  of 
the  code  is  unquestionably  archaic.  In  the  ritual  parts  of  P,  certain  expressions, 
which  are  doubtless  late,  were  added  by  the  reviser;  but  these  exceptions  simply 
prove  the  rule"   (Lotz,  A.   T.  u.  die   Wissensch.). 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE.  275 

pre-Exilic  date ;  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  Edomite  history 
(Gen.  36)  extends  only  to  the  time  of  David.  The  description 
of  the  extent  of  Canaan  (Num.  34)  suits  the  very  early  period. 
Another  inexplicable  fact  (on  the  Grafian  hypothesis)  is  the  im- 
pHed  autonomy  of  the  twelve  tribes  after  their  absorption  in 
the  kingdom.  Nowhere  in  P  do  we  find  the  bitter  tone  against 
foreign  nations  so  prominent  in  the  post-Exilic  books. 

The  Grafians  regard  the  registers  of  names  in  Num.  1-3,  7,  13,  33, 
34  and  elsewhere  as  pure  fabrications.  But  now  that  the  South  Ara- 
bian monuments  and  the  numerous  inscriptions  from  the  Hammurabi 
period  have  shed  fresh  light  on  the  old  Semitic  proper  names,  it  has 
been  shown  that  the  names  in  these  chapters  have  forms  corresponding 
to  those  extant  in  the  Mosaic  period.  The  historical  character  of 
such  names  is  an  overwhelming  proof  that  this  code  has  elements 
reaching  to  the  Mosaic  and  pre-Mosaic  ages.  It  has  also  been  found 
that  many  of  the  technical  expressions  and  sacrificial  usages  of  P  are 
analogous  to  those  of  ancient  Arabian  and  Babylonian  periods,  so 
that  here  again,  this  code  goes  back  to  a  hoary  antiquity.  All  the 
more  difficult,  therefore,  is  the  attempt  to  bring  the  main  stratum  of  P 
down  to  late  date.  If,  however,  the  chief  parts  of  P,  as  of  J,  E,  and 
p,  are  early,  the  critical  difficulties  are  largely  surmounted,  for  the 
different  codes  (socalled),  even  though  partly  contemporaneous,  would 
supplement  each  other. 

(3).  The  Literary  Sources  of  P.  For  the  historical  sec- 
tions, P  clearly  depends  largely  on  written  sources.  Oral  tra- 
dition is  too  vague  and  aimless  to  suit  the  historian's  purpose. 
The  reduction  of  the  old  material  to  narratives  containing  a 
religious  purpose  was  the  work  of  the  early  collaborators. 
They  must  have  sprung  up  at  least  in  the  Joshua,  and  probably 
already  in  the  Mosaic  period ;  and  so  it  was  possible  to  extract 
from  the  old  records  (of  the  Mosaic  and  pre-Mosaic  periods) 
the  essentials  of  history  and  furnish  a  systematic  account  of 
revelation  in  the  priestly  style  and  interest.  It  may  be  assumed 
that  P  had  access  to  E,  or  to  his  sources.  As  to'  J,  Dillmann 
allows  considerable  matter  common  to  J  and  P,  but  finds  that 
in  some  sections,  as  Gen.  i-ii,  P  is  earlier.^^  That  P  had 
access  to  very  ancient  sources  is  evident  from  the  genealogies 
of  Shem,  Ishmael,  Edom  and  the  lists  in  Gen.  46;  also  Num. 
I,  3,  13,  26,  34,  etc.,  and  especially  from  the  narrative  concem- 


*i  "Since  the  narratives  of  the  creation  and  of  the  deluge,  and  the  lists  of 
the  Noachic  races  (Gen.  lo)  are  decidedly  more  archaic  in  P  than  in  J,  the  de- 
pendence of  P  on  J  for  the  primeval  history  cannot  be  conceded;  on  the  con- 
trary, we  must  infer  that  in  its  first  part  the  present  J  code  contains  elements 
which  are  incorporated  on  the  basis  of  P.  The  perceptible  P  coloring  in  Gen.  6: 
7  and  8:  21  would  in  this  event  be  explained"   (Dillm.,   op.  cit.,  p.,   656). 


2/6  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

ing  Enoch,  the  landing  on  Ararat,  the  rambow,  cave  of  Mach- 
pelah,  the  plagues  of  files,  etc.  (Dillmann).^- 

7.  Arguments  Unfavorable  to  a  Post-Exilic  Date. 

(i).  P  Unsuitable  to  a  Late  Date.  According  to  Dill- 
mann,  "it  is  inconceivable  that  a  post-Exilic  priest,  or  priests 
would  have  dared  contrary  to  contemporaneous  prophecy  (Zech. 
I  :  2-6)  and  to  the  dominant  D  code  (as  claimed  by  our  oppo- 
nents), to  introduce  sharply  antagonistic  laws,  and  contrary  to 
Ezekiel  44  (Zadokites)  to  install  the  Aaronites  as  priests,  or  to 
favor  laws  of  tithing  and  feasts  antagonistic  to  those  of  J,  D 
and  Ezekiel.  Even  allowing  such  a  possibility,  is  it  likely  that 
the  interested  classes  would  have  fav^ored  such  innovations 
(partly  to  their  disadvantage),  unless  justification  had  been 
found  in  earlier  writings"  (p.,  270)  ?  Though  the  post-Exilic 
period  v/as  one  of  some  literary  activity  (Haggai  and  Zech., 
520;  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  456-32),  we  have  no  evidence  that 
any  writer  was  interested  in  the  archaic  matter  of  P.  It  is 
inconceivable  that  after  D  had  been  united  with  JE  (Graf- 
Wellh.)  and  had  received  official  sanction,  the  scheme  of  antag- 
onizing and  supplanting  the  earlier  codes  could  have  been  car- 
ried through  without  opposition.  The  Grafian  Hypothesis  im- 
plies an  unparalleled  degree  of  credulity  on  the  part  of  the  post- 
Exilic  Jews.*^ 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  an  author  of  the  fifth  pre- 
Christian  century  in  writing  a  law-book  for  an  obscure  people 
in  a  Persian  province  should  incorporate  minute  ordinances  on 
the  Ten  Tribes,  the  Levitical  cities,  war  and  booty,  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  Urim  and  Thummim,  and  other  matters  not  suit- 
able to  his  age.  The  claim  of  Kuenen  that  such  material  was 
incorporated  merely  to  authenticate  the  work,  implies  (apart 
from  deception)  the  use  of  older  written  sources.  Again,  if 
this  code  was  prepared  in  the  Ezraic  period,  why  is  it  silent  on 
matters  of  vital  concern  for  the  new  community,  such  as  pro- 
hibition of  mixed  marriages,  the  service  of  the  Levitical  sin- 

S2  "Some  of  P's  matter  must  have  been  based  on  special  written  sources:  as, 
the  names  of  Esau's  wives  (Gen.  26:  34;  28:  9),  the  name  Padden  Aram;  the 
contest  of  Moses  and  Aaron  with  the  Egyptian  magicians,  the  place  of  Aaron's 
ieath  (Num.  20:  23);  the  murmuring  of  Moses  and  Aaron  at  Meribah  (Num.  i8: 
ij),  the  peculiar  Balaam  narrative  (Num.  31:  8,  16),  and  the  controversy  with 
the  East-Jordanic  tribes.     P's  sources  here  are  unknown"    (Dillmann). 

^^  Can  we  suppose  that  the  learned  Jews  of  Ezra's  time  would  have  accepted 
without  question  the  creation-account  of  Gen.  i:  i — 2:  3  as  over  against  2:  4-25, 
or  the  increase  of  the  feasts  from  4  to  7;  or  would  have  allowed  the  whole  scheme 
of  elaborate  P  sacrifices  to  go  into  effect  without  a  solitary  protest?  Such  a  silent 
acquiescence  in  a  revolutionary  program  is  utterly  foreign  to  ancient  Hebrew 
proclivities. 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE.  277 

gers,  musicians,  door-keepers,  etc.  ?     Why  finally  is  the  law  of 
the  Passover  different  from  the  practice  of  Ezra's  time?^* 

(2).  The  Account  in  Nehemiah  8 — lo.  Contrary  to  the 
Grafian  view,  the  account  in  Neh.  8 — lo  of  Ezra's  public  read- 
ing of  the  book  of  the  law  in  444  B.  C,  does  not  convey  the 
impression  that  it  was  a  recently  composed  book.  Still  less 
probable  does  this  view  become,  if  we  hold  that  the  book  was 
the  completed  Pentateuch.  In  that  event,  time  would  be  re- 
quired for  the  composition  of  the  different  parts  of  P,  and 
their  union  with  each  other  and  with  the  other  documents 
entering  into  the  Pentateuch.  Ezra  is  said  to  be  a  ready  scribe 
in  the  law  of  Jehovah",  and  the  implication  is  that  *'the  law" 
is  our  Pentateuch  and  that  it  dates  from  a  distant  past.  The 
people  know  of  the  existence  of  the  law,  for  they  ''gathered  to- 
gether .  .  .  and  spake  unto  Ezra  to  bring  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses"  (Neh.  8:  i).  They  appear  simply  to  have 
neglected  to  observe  its  contents.  Furthermore,  Ezra  2 :  36  f ; 
Neh.  6:  10;  12:  35,  41  and  Haggai  2:  11  imply  acquaintance 
with  the  Priest  Code. 

8.  Ezekiel  and  the  Priest  Code. 

The  pre-Exilic  date  of  P  is  reached  by  another  line  of 
proof.  The  prophet  Ezekiel  employs  language  which  implies 
a  knowledge  of  Levit.  17-26  (H)  and  the  Priest  Code  in  gen- 
eral.^^  Since  Ezekiel  prophesied  in  597-71  we  have  a  fixed 
datum.  If  the  priority  of  H  and  P  to  Ezekiel  is  established,  it 
follows  that  P  is  pre-Exilic.  'There  are  a  number  of  points 
in  which  it  is  generally  conceded  that  the  legislation  of  Ez.  is 
an  advance  upon  H.  In  the  distribution  of  priestly  functions, 
in  the  classification  of  holy  things,  in  the  enumeration  of  sacri- 
fices, and  in  the  treatment  of  feasts  Ez.  is  certainly  more  devel- 
oped than  H.     This  fact  need  not  be  exhibited  in  detail,  inas- 

84  "The  hypothesis  that  in  P  we  have  a  projection  of  later  conditions  into 
the  desert  period  breaks  down  under  the  weight  of  P's  data.  The  writer  conceives 
the  Levites  primarily  as  a  body  of  sacred  porters.  Now  nobody  living  in  any 
subsequent  age  could  suppose  that  there  was  either  occasion  or  possibility  to  carry 
about  the  Temple.  If  we  are  really  to  adopt  the  projection  theory  (according  to 
which  the  duties  of  the  Levites  in  P  mirror  their  duties  in  the  second  Temple), 
we  must  imagine  a  priestly  gentleman  picturing  to  himself  sections  of  the  Temple 
walls  and  bits  of  the  roof  as  being  carried  about  at  odd  times  by  Levites  on  their 
shoulders.  The  absurdity  of  the  proposition  must  surely  be  obvious  to  everybody" 
(Wiener,    op.   cit.,   p.,    75). 

s5  The  Wellhausen  sequence  is:  D,  Ezek.,  H,  P;  the  Dillmann,  H,  P,  D, 
Ezek.  In  addition  to  the  older  literature  of  Del.,  Dill.,  Klos.,  Baud.,  Kittel,  see 
L.  B.  Paton  on  "The  Holiness  Code  and  Ezekiel",  in  Pres.  and  Ref.  Rev.,  VII, 
98 — IIS,  and  J.  O.  Boyd  on  "Ezek.  and  the  Modern  Dating  of  the  Pent.,"  in 
"Princ.   Theolog.  Rev.,   VI,   29 — 51). 


278  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW  LITERATURE. 

much  as  it  is  conceded  by  Kuenen,  Baentsch  and  other  advo- 
cates of  the  priority  of  Ez."  (Paton). 

Other  strata  in  P  are  earlier  than  Ez.,  as  shown  by  P  pas- 
sages compared  with  Ez.,  as:  Gen.  9:  14  and  Ez.  i  :  28;  Gen. 
7:  14  and  Ez.  17:  23;  39:  4,  17.  Ezekiel's  "every  bird  of 
every  wing",  thrice  repeated,  seems  to  be  a  reflection  of  Gen. 
7:  14.  Ezekiel  in  4:  4-6  doubtless  had  Num.  14:  34  (P)  in 
mind.  If  we  were  to  accept  the  view  "that  Ezekiel  here  ^yas 
prior  to  P,  it  would  involve  us  in  the  absurdity  of  attributing 
to  P  not  merely  invention  of  historical  facts  —  this  is  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  Wellhausen  conception  of  P  —  and  not  merely 
a  dependence  on  Ezekiel  wholly  uncalled-for  under  the  circum- 
stances of  this  case,  but  this  invention  and  this  slavish  depen- 
dence without  any  assignable  motive"   (Boyd). 

According  to  the  critical  canon  that  an  elaborate  ritual  is 
later  than  a  simple  one,  Baudissin  urges  the  priority  of  P  over 
Ezekiel.  "In  P,  the  killing,  flaying,  and  cutting  up  of  the 
sacrificial  animal  has  to  be  done  by  the  layman  presenting  the 
offering  (Lev.  i  :  5,  11,  etc.)  ;  in  Ez.  the  Levites  have  to  per- 
form the  killing.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  this  instance 
the  Priests'  Code  represents  the  earlier  custom"  (Hast.,  Die. 
Bib.,  IV,  87). 

Grafians  ask,  'If  P's  distinction  between  Levites  and 
Aaronites  was  known  to  Ez.,  why  does  he  present  his  own  dis- 
tinction between  priests  and  Levites?'  It  suffices  to  observe 
that  Ezekiel's  Zadokites  are  not  the  same  as  P's  Aaronites. 
The  former,  as  but  one  branch  of  the  family  of  Aaron,  are  less 
extensive  than  the  Aaronites.^^  The  sons  of  Zadok  according 
to  I  K.  2 :  35  and  Ezekiel  were  the  priests  officiating  in  Jeru- 
salem from  the  time  of  Solomon.  When,  therefore,  Ezekiel 
(44:  15)  speaks  of  the  sons  of  Zadok  as  priests,  he  employs  a 
narrower  term  than  P's  "sons  of  Aaron",  that  is  Ezekiel  is  later 
than  P,  even  according  to  the  Wellhausen  logic. 
9.  The  Date  of  the  Priest  Code. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  summarize  the  evidence  for  the 
date  of  the  Priest  Code. 

(i).  Dilemma  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  School.    The  Well- 


*»  According  to  Ex.  28:  i;  40:  2-15,  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  appointed 
priests.  Nadab  and  Abihu  having  perished,  the  priesthood  was  hereditary  in  the 
lines  of  Eleazar  and  Ithamar.  Zadok,  a  descendant  of  Eleazar,  and  Abiathar,  a 
descendant  of  Ithamar,  were  priests  under  David.  Abiathar,  having  joined  the 
Adonijah  rebellion,  was  deposed;  but  Zadok,  remaining  loyal  to  David  and  Sol- 
omon, was  confirmed  in  the  priesthood,  as  were  his  descendants. 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE.  279 

hausen  hypothesis  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  the  reHgious 
institutions  of  Israel  were  developed  uninterruptedly.  But 
this  assumption  has  never  been  verified.  The  data  show  that 
there  was  advance  and  retrogression  alternately.  The  postulate 
of  this  school  is  that  according  to  Deuteronomy,  the  civil  and 
ceremonial  ordinances  of  P  were  not  enforced  (and  therefore 
not  in  existence)  in  the  monarchical  period,  but  only  in  the 
small  community  established  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  This 
position  is  valid  as  over  against  those  (i)  who  hold  that  P  in 
all  its  details  is  the  work  of  Moses,  and  those  (2)  who  believe 
that  the  laws  of  P  were  actually  enforced  from  the  first.  But 
the  Wellhausen  contention  is  invalid  over  against  the  view, 
that  the  Priest  Code,  based  on  Mosaic  data  and  principles,  but 
drawn  up  with  an  eye  on  both  present  and  future  needs,  con- 
tains an  early  well-articulated  system  of  the  Israelitish  theo- 
cracy. On  the  critical  view  (shared  by  the  Grafians)  that  P  is 
a  priest  code,  it  would  not  possess  supreme  interest  for  the  pro- 
phets. Either  the  Grafians  must  allow  that  P  might  be  ex- 
tant without  necessarily  being  quoted  by  the  prophets,  or  they 
must  abandon  their  favorite  dictum  of  a  sharp  antagonism  be- 
tween priests  and  prophets.  In  the  former  case  our  contention 
is  established;  in  the  latter,  the  possibility  of  priestly  and 
prophetic  writings  existing  side  by  side  from  the  earliest  times 
must  be  conceded. ^^ 

(2).  Traces  of  P  in  D  and  other  Books.  The  Grafians 
deny  any  traces  of  P  in  D.  Here  the  honors  between  them  and 
the  Dillmannists  are  even.  As  seen  above,  we  do  not  expect 
a  direct  influence  of  one  on  the  other ;  but  the  question  is 
whether  D  knowing  of  the  existence  of  P  would  unquestion- 
ably quote  from  it.  The  contention  of  the  Grafians  is  illicit, 
for  it  cannot  be  shown  that  D  (on  the  Grafian  assumption)  was 
bound  to  refer  to  P.  All  the  conditions  would  be  met  (even 
if  both  P  and  D  arose  in  the  Mosaic  period)  if  it  should  appear 
that  D  was  aware  of  the  institutions  of  P  and  designed  to  sup- 
plement them.^^ 

It  is  impossible  to  prove  a  development  of  the  cultus  be- 


"  "The  question  is  not  whether  there  was  a  time  in  the  monarchical  period 
when  all  the  laws  of  P  were  enforced,  but  only  whether  it  is  conceivable  that 
already  about  800  B.  C.  the  priests  of  the  central  sanctuary  came  forward  with 
such  an  ideal;  and  we  see  no  reason  to  answer  this  question  in  the  negative" 
Dillm.). 

«8  It  was  shown  above  that  D  exhibits  an  acquaintance  with  the  legal  and 
historical  data  of  P  and  to  some  extent  with  the  language  and  phraseology.  Thus 
Deut.  i:  15;  2:  14-16;  3:  15;  4:  16,  and  chas.  17,  18,  25,  etc.  contain  expressions 
characteristic  of  P.     That  these  are  glosses  by  a  later  editor  is  out  of  the  question. 


28o  ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

tween  621  and  445  —  an  age  of  decadence  comprising  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Exile,  the  Exile  itself  and  the  time  between 
Zerubbabel  and  Ezra  —  periods  absolutely  unsuitable  for  most 
of  the  institutions  of  P.  It  is  inconceivable  that  any  priest 
would  in  this  interval  draw  up  the  laws  of  P.  Any  modification 
of  the  ritual  would  proceed  on  the  basis  of  the  old  laws ;  the  in- 
troduction of  absolutely  new  laws  is  improbable.  We  are 
therefore  led  to  conclude  that  the  institutions  of  P  are  not  only 
pre-Exilic,  but  in  the  main  pre-monarchical,  and  even  Mosaic. 

E.    SUMMARY  ON   THE   ORIGIN   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH. 

A  theoretical  and  practical  reconciliation  of  the  uniform 
Old  Testament  teaching,  according  to  the  traditionalists,  that 
Moses  had  a  considerable  share  in  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  of  the  modem  critical  hypothesis,  that  the  Hexateuch  arose 
from  six  to  eight  centuries  after  Moses,  may  be  sought  along 
the  following  lines. 

I.  Theory  of  Documents. 

Since  the  Old  Testament  abounds  in  references  to  books 
and  sources,  a  theory  of  documents  is  not  in  itself  objectionable, 
but  becomes  so  only  when  the  documents  are  affirmed  to  be  late 
and  of  naturalistic  origin. 

2.  Codes  Based  on  Ancient  Sources. 

Starting  for  the  purpose  of  argument,  from  the  theory  of 
the_ codes  J,  E,  P  and  D  (too  widely  accepted  by  Hebraists  to 
be  ignored),  we  have  seen  that  each  of  these  codes  is  based  on 
a  considerable  number  of  early  written  sources,  and  so  may  in 
fact  go  back  in  substance  to  the  Mosaic  age.  Thus,  (i)  the 
Decalog,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  Little  Book  of  the  Cov- 
enant, and,  with  the  exception  of  some  editorial  additions,  the 
matter  in  J  and  E  (so  far  as  language  and  historical  setting 
enable  us  to  determine)  originated  in  the  Moses-Joshua  period. 
(2).  Without  deciding  the  question  of  the  final  redaction  of 
Deuteronomy,  it  is  clear  that  the  book  reproduces  old  laws  and 
monitions,  and  is  based  on  ancient  written  sources  which  in 
some  cases  demonstrably  go  back  to  the  Mosaic  age.  The 
theory  which  upon  the  whole  seems  best  supported  is  that  some 
editor  in  the  age  of  Joshua  or  not  much  later,  having  access  to 
the  scattered  records  of  the  last  words  and  acts  of  Moses,  wrote 
out  Deuteronomy  in  substantially  its  present  form.  (3).  As  to 
the  Priest  code,  P,  it  is  incredible  that  chapter  after  chapter 
relating  to  the  ten  tribes,  Levitical  cities,  Urim  and  Thummim, 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE.  28 1 

the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  sacred  vessels,  the  cultus  of  the 
Mosaic  age,  ancient  and  extinct  nations,  and  ancient  laws  and 
technical  details,  originated  as  late  as  445  B.  C,  an  age  not  in- 
terested in  such  matters ;  and  on  the  other  hand  that  post-Exilic 
priests  would  have  dared  to  introduce  laws  sharply  antagonistic 
to  the  (assumed)  dominant  D  code,  to  install  the  Aaronites  as 
priests  (contrary  to  Ezekiel),  to  favor  laws  of  tithing  and 
feasts  opposing  those  of  J,  D  and  Ezekiel,  and  in  short  to  bring 
forward  a  code  embodying  much  matter  unsuitable  to  that  age, 
and  omitting  things  of  vital  concern  for  the  new  community. 
From  the  character  of  the  matter,  which  has  point  and  signifi- 
cance only  for  the  Mosaic  age  and  which  from  its  circumstan- 
tiality of  detail  could  not  have  been  thought  out  (without  an- 
achronisms) by  a  post-Exilic  Jew  however  learned,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  code  in  its  essentials  was 
drawn  up  at  an  early  date  on  the  basis  of  sources  going  back 
to  the  Mosaic  age. 

3.  Pentateuch  Essentially  Mosaic. 

Unless  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Old  Testament  that 
Moses  had  a  large  share  in  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  a  fiction  of  a  later  age  (which  is  improbable)  and  unless, 
further,  our  Lord  intended  to  accommodate  himself  to  a  false 
traditional  view  (which  is  unthinkable),^^  we  cannot  escape 
the  conclusion  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  underlying  parts  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  Moses. 

4.  Employment  of  Scribes  and  Amanuenses. 

Moses  undoubtedly  was  competent  and  had  the  required 
facilities  to  write  such  a  work  as  the  Pentateuch,  had  he  been 
so  disposed ;  and  the  evidence  Biblical  and  critical  is  to  the 
effect  that  he  actually  wrote  the  Ten  Words,  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  and  some  other  parts.  But  in  view  of  the  difference 
in  style  (indicating  different  writers)  and  in  accord  with  the 
custom  of  that  age,  the  conditions  of  the  problem  are  met  if  we 
suppose  that  for  the  most  part  scribes  and  amanuenses  drew  up 
under  his  direction  the  early  history  of  the  world  and  of  his 
people,  as  well  as  an  account  of  the  deliverance  from  Egyptian 
bondage  and  of  his  legislative  activity.     Hence  the  underlying 


«9  Two  alternatives  we  exclude:  (i),  that  Jesus  had  so  limited  or  emptied 
himself  (Phil.  2:5)  that  he  did  not  know  or  care  to  know  the  facts  regarding  the 
Torah;  and  (2)  that  he  wickedly  intended  to  deceive.  The  former  alternative 
implies   a   false  Kenosis;    the   latter,    a   false  ethics. 


282  ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 

Strata  of  the  Pentateuch  may  well  have  originated  in  the  Mosaic 
age.^° 

5.  A  Fourfold  Record. 

A  fourfold  record  of  the  birth-time  of  Israel  would  in  fact 
furnish  cumulative  proof  of  the  historicity  and  correctness  of  the 
narrative,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  four  Gospels  (really  one 
Gospel)  we  have  cumulative  proof  of  the  life  and  teaching  of 
Jesus.  Under  this  view  the  documents  and  codes  underlying 
the  Pentateuch  virtually  sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  Mosaic 
age  in  point  of  time,  content  and  literary  form  as  the  four  Gos- 
pels to  that  of  Christ. ^^ 


»"  "If  we  accept  Moses  as  a  historical  character  and  if  we  believe  the  account 
of  Exodus  that  he  was  brought  up  as  a  prince  of  the  house  of  Pharaoh,  it  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  that  he  was  unfamiliar  with  such  accomplishments  [viz. 
writing,  etc.,].  He  would  be  trained  in  every  accomplishment  known  at  the 
court  and  certainly  in  those  which  the  Pharaoh  expected  even  his  minor  officials 
to  possess.  So  far  then  as  writing  is  concerned,  there  is  not  the  slightest  diffi- 
culty in  accepting  him  as  the  author  of  at  least  the  kernel  of  the  Pentateuch" 
(J.   G.  Duncan,  Explor.  Egypt  and  the   O.   T.,  p.,   243). 

®i  "The  history  of  Israel  and  of  its  literature  stands  under  another  law  than 
that  of  a  constant  development  from  below  upward.  The  unique  redemption  era 
of  Moses  dominates  as  a  creative  beginning  .the  whole  of  the  subsequent  develop- 
ment. No  doubt  there  is  a  constant  progress,  but  it  is  only  such  as  gradually  to 
develop  that  which  had  commenced  in  the  time  of  Moses  with  all  the  primal  force 
and  fulness   of  a  divine   creation"    (Delitzsch,  Psalms). 


I. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Aaronites  and  Zadokites,  differ- 
ence between,  p.  278. 

Abraham,  language  of,  50,  51; 
had  trustworthy  cuneiform  rec- 
ords, 8,  240,  244,  250;  migra- 
tion of,  from  Ur,  241 ;  monothe- 
ism of,  241 ;  influenced  by  cul- 
ture of  Ur,  240. 

Abridged  Egyptian  Alphabet,  57; 
possible  influence  of,  on  Phoe- 
nician letters,  83,    173. 

Abu  Simbel,  Phoenician  inscrip- 
tion of,  97;  Greek  inscriptions 
of,  83,   173. 

Aerology,  56,  140.  See  Acrophony. 

Acrophony,  defined  and  illustrat- 
ed, 56;  Egyptian  principle  of, 
adopted  by  inventors  of  Semit- 
ic,   (Phoenician)    alphabet,    137. 

Aegean  Writing,  probably  fur- 
nished material  for  Phoenician 
alphabet,  91,  129. 

Agrarian    laws    of    Book    of    the 

Covenant,  possible  in  Mosaic  age, 
201. 

Agriculture,  in  Genesis  narratives, 
197;  not  incompatible  with  cul- 
tivation of  literature  (W.  R. 
Smith),  213. 

Alphabet,  no  true,  prior  to  Phoe- 
nician, 58;  a  certain  kind  of,  in 
Egypt  in  early  times,  58;  prob- 
lem of  origin  of  Phoenician, 
81;  theories  of  origin  of,  84-92; 
importance  of  determining  date 
of  origin,  83,  84;  alleged  Phoe- 
nician origin  of,  84;  Egyptian 
origin  (de  Rouge),  84;  Stand- 
ard Egyptian,  86,  173;  the  de 
Rouge  theory  of,  86;  Hittite 
origin  of,  87;  theory  of  Baby- 
lonian origin  of,  89;  theory  of 
Aramaic  origin  of,  90;  Mesopo- 


tamian  origin  of,  90;  theory 
of  Cretan  origin  of,  91 ;  Greek, 
129;  introduced  into  Greece  by 
Phoenicians,  129,  130;  provi- 
sional theory  of  origin  of,  137; 
Delitzsch  hypothesis  of  origin 
of,  137;  Astro-Mythological 
hypothesis  of  origin  of,  142; 
growth  and  development  of, 
148,  154;  three  types  of  North 
Semitic,  156;  relation  of  N. 
and  S.  Semitic,  156,  157;  Phoe- 
nician, known  to  Moses,  171 ; 
extant  in  third  pre-Christian 
millennium,  151 ;  Phoenician, 
long  a  Scriptura  privata,  123, 
182,   183. 

Alphabetology,  principles  of,  154; 
law  of  correlative  variation, 
154;  no  absolute  sameness  of 
development  in  alphabets,  155; 
law  of  graphic  development, 
156. 

Altars,  question  of  unity  or  plu- 
rality, 27Z',  bearing  on  date  of 
Priest  code,   272,,  274. 

Amanuenses,  in  service  of  Moses, 
80,    169,  234,  264,  281. 

Amarna  Letters,  when  and  where 
discovered,  67',  character  and 
value  of,  68;  language  and 
script  of,  68;  scribes  in  Pales- 
tine, in  time  of,  234;  afford 
proof  of  cuneiform  in  Palestine 
in  early  times,  178;  mention 
Byblos,  Gaza,  Jerusalem,  etc., 
67;  confirmatory  of  O.  T.,  68, 
and  of  antiquity  of  Hebrew 
language,    187,    foot-note,   36. 

American  Graiians,  mostly  fol- 
lowers of  Germans  and  capti- 
vated by  the  Wellhausen  rheto- 
ric and  philosophy,  10,  11,  15, 
19,  20,  269,  270. 


288 


284 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 


Amorites,  47;  civilization  of,  50; 
played  important  role  in  West- 
Land,  69;  used  Babylonian  lan- 
guage and  script,  72. 

Amraphel,  246.     See  Hammurabi. 

Amurru,  high  civilization  of,  49; 
home  of  Northern  Semites 
(Clay),  48-49;  influenced  West- 
Land  culture,  70,  74;  carried 
civilization  and  religion  to 
Babylonia,  72,,  74',  often  re- 
ferred to,  in  Babylonian  and 
Egyptian   inscriptions,    74,    75. 

Anachronisms,  character  of,  34; 
value  of  argument  from,  in  de- 
termining date  of  a  book,  40; 
in    Shakespeare,  40. 

Anonymity  of  Babylonian- Assy- 
rian literature,  66. 

Anonymous  Writings,  authors  of, 
frequently  determined  by  the 
literary-historical  criticism,  40, 
259- 

Antiquity,  of  proto-Phoenician  al- 
phabet, 150-153;  of  Phoenician 
alphabet,  158;  of  Babylonian 
writing,  53-55 ;  of  Babylonian 
literature,  62-66;  of  Egyptian 
writing,  55-57;  of  Egyptian  lit- 
erature, 59-61 ;  of  Greek  alpha- 
bet, 135 ;  of  Hebrew  language, 
51,  187;  of  Hebrew  literature, 
193-280;  of  Genesis  XIV,  245; 
of  underlying  strata  in  Penta- 
teuch, 238-279. 

Arabia,  land  of  old  civilization, 
123,  151- 

Arabia,  North,  supposed  original 
home  of  Semites,  47. 

Aramaic  Language,  in  O.  T.,  50, 
137;  long  a  lingua  franca,  90, 
157;  spoken  in  Jerusalem  in 
Hezekiah's  time,   184. 

Aramaic  script  and  inscriptions, 
100,  107 ;  Zakar,  loi ;  Hadad, 
104;  Panammu,  104;  Bar-Re- 
kub,  105;  Nerab,  105;  Lion- 
Weight  of  Abydos,  106;  Lamas, 
Teima,   106. 

Aramaic  hypothesis  of  origin  of 
Phoenician   alphabet,  90. 


Archaic  Hebrew  script,  character 
of,  108-116;  used  in  David-Ez- 
ra age,  163-165;  in  Joshua-Da- 
vid age,  166-168;  in  Mosaic 
age,  168-172. 

Archaeology  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 49,  93. 

Argument,  from  anachronisms,  in 
establishing  date  of  a  document 
or  book,  40;  from  silence,  40; 
from  subject-matter,  40;  from 
vocabulary,  :^7 ;  from  direct 
reference,   39. 

Assyrian  language,  similar  to 
Babylonian,  46;  in  Israel,  184; 
at  court  of  Jehu,  185 ;  Conder's 
argument  of  use  of,  in  original 
O.  T.  books,  188;  Sayce's  view 
of  early  O.  T.  books  para- 
phrased   from,    189. 

Assyrian  literature,  many  kinds 
of,  61 ;  mostly  imitation  of 
Babylonian,   61. 

Astro-Mythological  hypothesis  of 
origin  of  Phoenician  alphabet, 
142. 

Authenticity,  meaning  and  im- 
portance of,  in  criticism,  31 ;  ac- 
cepted, in  case  of  documents, 
until   disapproved,   44. 

Baal-Lebanon  inscription,  96; 
date   of,  97. 

Babylonians,  character  of,  46;  em- 
ployed cuneiform  script,  53; 
had   many   scribes,  54. 

Babylonian  hypothesis  of  origin  of 
Phoenician  alphabet,  89,   137. 

Babylonian  language  in  Israel, 
178,   182  ff. 

Babylonian  literature,  antiquity  of, 
62  ff. ;  immense  extent  of,  62 ; 
poetical,  prose,  legal,  historical, 
epistolary  and  religious,  63-66; 
anonymity  of,   66. 

Babylonian  ivriting,  character  and 
antiquity   of,    51, 

Berytus,  antiquity  of,  145. 

Blessing  of  Moses  (Deut. 
XXXIII),  date  disputed,  265; 
ancient  and  probably  Mosaic, 
266. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


285 


Book,  early  use  of  term,  in  O.  T., 
214;  Hebrew  word  for,  sepher, 
probably  a  Babylonian  loan- 
word, 214;  implies  writing  on 
papyrus,  214. 

Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  XXI 
—XXIII),  scope  and  character 
of,  252 ;  Agrarian  laws  in,  201 ; 
Mosaic  origin  of,  252,  253 ;  com- 
pared with  Code  Hammurabi, 
65,  253;  moral  tone  of,  superior 
to  Code  Hammurabi,  65,  66,  253. 

Book  of  Genesis,  written  records 
underlying   it,    17,   238-25. 

Book  of  Jashar,  79 ;  poetical  form 
of,  227;  contains  Song  of  Bow, 
22y;    extent   of,   228. 

Book  of  Joel,  illustration  of  High- 
er Criticism,  from,  33 ;  style 
and  language  of,  ^,2)  I  historical 
situation  implied  in,  34;  infer- 
ences and  deductions  from,  34. 

Book  of  Joshua,  authorship  and 
date  of,  204;  based  on  old  rec- 
ords, 205. 

Book  of  Judges,  component  parts 
of,  205;  of  early  date,  206; 
negative  criticism  of,  largely 
subjective,  207,  208. 

Book  of  Wars  of  Jehovah,  79; 
date  of,  226. 

Book-Tou.m,  171.  See  Kiriath- 
sepher. 

Books,  early  Hebrew,  in  Davidic 
age,  218-221 ;  in  Mosaic  age, 
224-230,  240-280;  sacred,  de- 
posited in  sanctuaries,  268;  in 
foundation  walls  of  temiples, 
268;  books  and  scribes  in  O.  T., 
214.     See  Hebrew  literature. 

Boustrophedon  zm'iting,  in  early 
Greek  inscriptions,   133-134. 

Byhlos,  mentioned  in  Amarna  Let- 
ters, 67;  antiquity  of,  145;  cen- 
ter of  book-trade  and  papyrus 
industry,  145,  172 ;  seat  of  cul- 
ture in  pre-Mosaic  age,  145 ; 
word  hook  derived  therefrom, 
145,    172. 

Canaan,  early  Egyptian  influence 
in,  68;  early  Babylonian  civili- 
zation  in,   67,  69;    had   an   ad- 


vanced indigenous  civilization, 
68,  70;  influenced  by  Amorites, 
69;  Babylonian  influence  on, 
ceased  after  1800  B.  C,  70. 

Canaanites,  origin  and  character 
of,  70,  144;  early  employed 
cuneiform  script,  70;  stood  high 
culturally  in  2000-1500,  B.  C. 
73',  low  morally  and  religiously 
in  post-Mosaic  age,  209;  no 
models  for  Hebrews,  209;  out- 
classed by  Hebrews  of  Joshua 
period,  210,  211. 

Canon  of  O.  T.,  one  of  the  fun- 
damental problems  of  Old  Tes- 
tament  science,    i,   2. 

Cassitcs  in  Canaan  in  early  times, 
70. 

Certainty,  no  absolute  historical, 
42;  sufficient  for  practical  pur- 
poses,  42. 

Chartom,  the,  sacred  scribe,  ma- 
gician, 217. 

Chedorlaomer,  identified  with  Ku- 
du rlagamar,    240. 

Civilisation,  Hebrew,  in  Mosaic 
age,  5;  high,  according  to  tra- 
ditionalists, 5;  low,  according 
to  radicals,  6;  in  Canaan  in  pre- 
Mosaic  period,  67,  J2>'>  early 
Cretan,  91 ;  Hebrew,  in  pre- 
Davidic  period,  193,  204;  He- 
brew, in  pre-Mosaic  age,  196; 
of  Canaanites,  202;  Hebrew  and 
Canaanite,   compared,   211. 

Clay,  not  papyrus,  generally  used 
in   Babylonian   writing,   54. 

Code  Hammurabi,  65 ;  proof  of 
early  Babylonian  legal  litera- 
ture, 65,  66;  compared  with 
Book  of  the   Covenant,   66. 

Codes,  theory  of  Pentateuchal, 
12;  sequence  of,  16;  Deuteron- 
omic  code,  so-called,  12;  Eloh- 
istic  code,  E,  12;  Jehovistic 
code,  J,  12;  Holiness  code,  H, 
13;  Priest  code,  P,  13;  man- 
ner of  combining  codes,  14; 
Grafian  hypothesis  of,  15 ;  Pen- 
tateuchal, based  on  early  sourc- 
es,  280. 


286 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW  LITERATURE. 


Conservative  and  Radical  posi- 
tions of  O.  T.  criticism,  5-23; 
possibility  of  reconciliation,  be- 
tween, 24,  25 ;  mediating  view, 
26,  280-282. 

Creation  Epic  and  Genesis  I,  6^. 

Cretan  script,  conjectural  proto- 
type of  Phoenician,  92,  125,  129; 
relation  to_  Egyptian  hieratic,  or 
hieroglyphic,  92. 

Crete,  early  civilization  of,  91 ; 
origin  of  alphabet  in  (Evans, 
Praetorius),  91;  script  of,  92; 
center  of  a  primitive  system  of 
writing,  150;  syllabic  script  in, 
130. 

Criticism,  in  general,  defined,  27; 
a  characteristic  of  the  present 
age,  28;  kinds  of,  28;  Lower 
or  Textual,  29,  30;  Higher  or 
Literary,  29,  31;  need  of,  30; 
Shakespearean,  30;  province  of 
Higher,  31,  32,  33;  from  local 
color  of  writing,  40;  often  pure 
subjectivism,  31;  current  O.  T. 
criticism  largely  Grafian  and 
negative,  12-14,  196-21 1,  218-222, 
238-279. 

Criticism,  Higlier,  or  Literary- 
Historical,  illustrated  from 
Book  of  Joel,  33-35. 

Cuneiform  or  wedge-shape  writ- 
ing, nature  of,  53;  number  of 
characters  (Delitzsch),  53;  ide- 
ograms and  phonograms,  53 ; 
the  Babylonian  scribe,  54;  syl- 
labaries,  55. 

Cypriote  characters,^  possible  pro- 
to-types  of  Phoenician,  92. 

Cyprus,  Baal-Lebanon  inscrip- 
tion, in,  172;  'home  of  Cypriote 
script,  129. 

Debir.    See   Kiriath-sepher. 

Deborah,  Ode  of,  80,  230. 

Decalog,  Mosaic  origin  of,  251 ; 
not  beyond  comprehension  of 
Hebrews  of  the  Exodus,  251. 

Decalog,  second,  a  figment  of  the 
critical   imagination,   254. 

Delphi,  and  Phoenician  alphabet, 
131 ;  priests  of,  and  Greek  al- 
phabet,   131. 


Deluge,  Babylonian  story  of,  and 
Biblical   account,   63. 

Deuteronomy,  Book  of.  Mosaic 
origin  denied,  11;  character  and 
age  of,  according  to  Grafian 
criticism,  12;  dilemma  of  crit- 
icism, 256;  originated  in  sev- 
enth century  B.  C.,  according  to 
Grafians,  257 ;  a  pious  fraud 
(Holzinger),  257;  language 
and  style,  258,  259;  historical 
situation  that  of  Mosaic  age, 
259;  Egypticity  of,  259;  Mo- 
ses represented  as  author  of, 
260,  261 ;  references  to,  in 
prophets,^  262;  alleged  contra- 
dictions in,  262;  ancient  strata 
in,  266;  Mosaicity  of,  267; 
transmission  of,  267;  Mosaic  in 
underlying  strata,  280, 

Documents,  combined  to  form 
Pentateuch,  14;  Dillmann  hy- 
pothesis of,  15;  theory  of,  not 
necessarily   objectionable,   280. 

Eclecticism,  in  formation  of  al- 
phabets, 148. 

Egypt,  civilization  of,  5 ;  script 
and  literature  of,  57,  59-61 ; 
influence  of  on  Hebrews,  202; 
Semites,  in,  143;  Hyksos  in, 
143;  Egyptian  language  Semit- 
ized,  144. 

Egyptian  Standard,  Alphabet,  so- 
called,  85,   86. 

Egyptian  writing  and  literature, 
extent  and  antiquity  of,   59-61, 

Elohistic  code,  characteristics  and 
age  of,  12;  ancient,  and  based 
on  ancient  sources,  256. 

Engraving,  in  early  times,  62; 
early  use  of,  among  Hebrews, 
232. 

Epic,  the  Creation,  62, ;  the  Gil- 
g-amesch,  6;^. 

Epigraphy,  Semitic,  science  and 
importance  of,  93,  132;  Greek, 
132. 

Epistolary  literature,  Babylonian, 
66. 

Evolution,  of  Pentateuch,  accord- 
ing to  Graf-Wellhausen  school, 
11;  of  O.  T.  religion  and  liter- 
ature in  Grafian  system,  269, 
270;  and  revelation,  i,  269,  270. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


287 


Exile,  Babylonian,  180;  Babylon- 
ian and  Hebrew  language  in, 
181 ;  Hebrew  literary  activity 
in,  181 ;  Aramaic  language  and 
script  in,   181. 

Ezekiel,  relation  to  Priest  code, 
277;  later  than  P  code,  277, 
278;  sacrificial  system  more 
elaborate  than   P  code,  278. 

Foot-Notes,  none  in  ancient 
books,  262. 

Forgeries,  literary,  usually  ex- 
posed, 259. 

Fraud,  book  of  Deuteronomy,  a 
"Pious",   according  to  Grafians, 

257- 

Gebal.    See  Byblos. 

Genesis,  book  of,  contains  history, 
not  legends,  194-196;  matter 
of,  transmitted  from  patriarchal 
period,  242,  243;  first  eleven 
chapters  on  half  dozen  cunei- 
form tablets,  244;  chapters  V, 
X,  XIV,  based  on  old  records, 
2J  t; :  antiquity  of  chap.  XIV, 
245-249;  book  of,  not  traceable 
to  late  Babylonian  sources,  243. 

Genesis  XIV,  storm  center  of 
criticism,  245,  246;  persons  and 
places  of,  identified,  246;  his- 
torical background  of,  247; 
based  on  early  sources,  248. 

Genuineness,  of  ancient  documents 
accepted   until   disproved,  43. 

Geser,  cuneiform  tablets  of,  161, 
179. 

Gezer,  Hebrew  Calendar  Tablet 
of,  109;  archaic  character  of, 
no;  date  and  epigraphic  value 
of.  III,  112. 

Gideon,  writing  in  age  of,  by 
youth  of  Succoth,  in  Phoenician 
alphabet,   129,   130. 

Goddess,  no  word  for,  in  Hebrew 
language,  209. 

Gilgamesch  Epic,  63. 

Graftanism,  hypothesis  of,  271 ; 
assumes  late  date  of  Hebrew  al- 
phabet, writing  and  literature, 
148 ;  monistic  evolutionistic 
philosophy  of,  270;  regards 
Priest  code  as  evolutionistic, 
271;    natural  law   the  dominat- 


ing principle  of,  271 ;  holds  that 
codes  developed  from  simple  to 
Complex,  271 ;  regards  its  posi- 
tion as  established  absolutely, 
24;  destroys  the  old  order  from 
the  ground   up,  25. 

Greeks,  early  civilization  of,  128; 
adopted  Phoenician  alphabet, 
130;  experimented  with  alpha- 
bet, 128;  gradually  developed 
their  alphabet,  131 ;  extant  in- 
scriptions of,   132-134. 

Hammurabi,  character  of,  64; 
code  of,  compared  with  Mosaic 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  65-66; 
letters  of,  66;  the  lord  of  Ca- 
naan, 69;  the  Amraphel  of  Gen- 
esis   XIV,    246-247. 

Harran,  religious  and  literary 
center,  242. 

Hebrezvs,  highly  civilized  in  Mo- 
saic age,  5 ;  of  Semitic  stock, 
45 ;  antiquity  of  their  language, 
51;  had  examples  of  writing 
and  literature  in  Egypt,  61 ; 
early  adopted  Phoenician  alpha- 
bet, 168,  171 ;  learned  Egyptian 
language  and  script,  173 ;  a  bi- 
lingual people,  192;  not  no- 
mads, but  semi-nomads,  197,  198; 
had  elements  of  settled  govern- 
ment in  Egypt,  200;  prepared 
for  Mosaic  legislation  at  Exo- 
dus, 202 ;  morally  superior  to 
Canaanites,  210;  early  adopted 
Jehovah  religion,  211;  cultivat- 
ed true  historical  literature, 
205. 

Hebrew  Inscriptions,  archaic,  108; 
their  number,  108;  fewness  of, 
due  to  nature  of  writing-mater- 
ial, 108;  Siloam,  108;  Gezer 
Calendar,  109;  Jeroboam,  112; 
Samaria  ostraca,  114;  inscribed 
jar-handles,  116;  probability  of 
many  yet  to  be  discovered,  115. 
See    Inscriptions. 

Hexateuch,  composition  of,  12-15; 
formula  of,  15. 

Hieratic  script,  described,  55,  59; 
influence  of,  on  Phoenician,  145; 
fwas  Mosaic  law  written  in 
hieratic,  175-7. 


288 


ANTIQUITY  OF   HEBREW   LITERATURE. 


Hieroglyphics,  character  of,  55- 
58;  largely  phonetic,  56;  cop- 
ies of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  in, 
59;  many  writings  (monumen- 
tal)  in,  60. 

Higher,  or  Literary,  Criticism,  31, 
33 ;  name  of  science,  35 ;  broad 
scope  of,  S7;  methods  of,  37, 
39,  41 ;  literary  and  historical 
method  in,  39;  theological 
method,  41 ;  compared  with 
Lower,  2S. 

Historical  method  or  argument, 
value  of,  39,  42. 

Historical  situation  in  Palestine 
in  2500-1400  B.  C,  68-71. 

History  vs.  Legend,  18,  20;  gen- 
uine history  in  Genesis,  194; 
philosophy  of,  in  O.  T.,  208. 

Hittites,  their  writing,  boustro- 
phedon,  88;  inscriptions  of,  un- 
deciphered,  88;  script  of,  relat- 
ed to  Egyptian  hieroglyphics, 
88;  their  alleged  influence  in 
origin    of    Phceaiician    alphabet, 

87. 

Holiness  code,  H,  characteristics 
and'  age  of,  13,  14. 

Hyksos,  subdued  Palestine,  71 ; 
not  averse  to  literature,  71 ; 
their  reign  in  Egypt  and  expul- 
sion, 71 ;  as  Semites  in  Egypt, 
143 ;  duration  of  supremacy  of, 
in  Egypt,  143;  probable  share 
of,  in  origin  of  Phoenician  al- 
phabet,   143-145. 

Inscriptions,  many  Egyptian.  60; 
historical,  mythological,  poeti- 
cal, in  Egypt,  61 ;  Assyrian, 
consisting  of  poetical  and  prose 
works  on  many  subjects.  62; 
chief  Assyrian  historical,  62; 
many  Babylonian,  62 ;  Babylon- 
ian historical,  62,',  Hittite,  88; 
Semitic  and  O.  T.,  93 ;  number 
of  Semitic,  93,  94;  kinds  of,  94; 
Phoenician,  95 ;  Baal-Lebanon, 
96;  early  Greek,  128,  131; 
Thera,  133;  Assyrian  not  al- 
ways accurate,  250;  Minasan 
and  O.  T.,  275 ;  Egyptian  Cof- 
fin, 145-7;  hieratic,  146;  lon- 
ger archaic  Hebrew,   171. 


Integrity,  of  scripture,  32;  of 
(Pentateuch,   10,   238,   267. 

Israelites.     See  Hebrews. 

Jehovistic  code,  character  and  age 
of,  12 ;  ancient  and  based  on 
early  records,  256. 

Jeroboam  seal,  in  archaic  Hebrew 
script,  _  112;  discovery  of,  112; 
antiquity  of,  113,  165;  epigraph- 
ic  value  of,  113. 

Jerusalem,  no  reference  to,  in 
Deuteronomy,  a  proof  of  early 
date,  260. 

Joel.     See  Book  of  Joel, 

Jesus  and   the  Pentateuch,  281. 

Jotham's  Parable,  early  date  of, 
228,  229. 

Joshua,  writing  and  literature,  in 
time  of,  234;  copying  of  law, 
by,  234;  description  of  terri- 
tory,  in   age  of,   235. 

Kingdom,  law  of,  263. 

Kiriath-sepher,  Book- Town,  233; 
city  of  letters,  233;  documents 
preserved  in,  245. 

Kiriath-sannah,  seat  of  culture, 
171. 

Language,  Aramaic.  See  Aramaic 
Language. 

Language,  Assyrian.  See  Assy- 
rian   Language, 

Language,  Hebrew,  50;  early,  51; 
origin  and  development  of,  50; 
similar  to  Canaanite  and  Phoeni- 
cian, 50;  antiquity  of,  51,  75; 
three  stages  of,  51,  52. 

Languages,  Semitic,  49;  classifi- 
cation of,  49. 

Laze,  the  Mosaic,  foundation  of 
Hebrew  theocracy,  250;  implied 
in  prophets,  250;  copied  in  time 
of  Joshua,  234. 

Lazv  and  prophecy  relation  of,  21; 
law  first,  then  prophecy,  22; 
Pentateuchal  codes,  prior  to 
prophetical  books,  238-279. 

Legends  and  myths,  Gunkel's  view 
of  184  f. ;  said  to  characterize 
Genesis  narratives,  193 ;  unten- 
ability  of  hypothesis  of,  194-6; 
no  historical  facts  in  Genesis 
according  to   Gunkel,    194. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


289 


Letter-Names,  Phoenician-He- 

brew, 138-140;  unknown  mean- 
ing of  some,  in  Hebrew  alpha- 
bet, 139;  names  and  forms  of 
Phoenician  letters,  138;  prob- 
lem of,  138;  theories  of  origin, 
140;    Semitized    Sumerian,    141. 

Libraries,  Canaanite,  at  Gilgal, 
Shechem,  Shiloh,  244,  248,  249; 
at  Kiriath-sepher,  245;  at  Je- 
rusalem, 245. 

Literature,  Egyptian,  very  ancient, 
59'  61 ;  Assyrian,  61  ;  Baby- 
lonian, 62>;  Babylonian  in  Ham- 
murabi period,  64;  legal  Baby- 
lonian, 65,  66;  Babylonian 
Epistolary,  66;  anonymity  of 
Babylonian-Assyrian,  66;  a  na- 
tive  Palestinian   in   early   times, 

Literature,  Hebrew;  two  theories 
of  antiquity  of,  5 ;  early  date  of, 
51,  76,  238,  250-280;  trustworth- 
iness of,  208;  in  David-Solo- 
mon period,  y6,  218;  David's 
Lament  over  Saul  and  Jona- 
than, 79,  218;  David's  letter  to 
Joab,  218;  Psalms  of  David,  78, 
219;  David's  Last  Prophetic 
words,  220;  History  of  Samuel 
the  Seer,  221 ;  History  of  Nath- 
an the  Prophet,  221 ;  History  of 
Gad  the  Seer,  221 ;  pre-Davidic, 
223;  Book  of  Wars  of  Jeho- 
vah, 80,  2^4;  Memorial  against 
Amalek,  254;  Song  of  Deborah, 
80,  230;  in  Mosaic  age  and 
Judges,  236;  old  Hebrew  rec- 
ords, 238;  problem  of  script  of 
early,  81,  83,  166-172. 

Literature,  Hebrew  historical,  yy; 
the  most  trustworthy  in  the  an- 
cient world,  (E.  Meyer),  205; 
superior  to  Babylonian,  Egyp- 
tian, and  Assyrian,  185,  205. 

Little  Book  of  the  Covenant,  so- 
called,    written   by    Moses,   254. 

Lower  or  Textual  Criticism,  29; 
compared  with  Higher,  29; 
need  of,  30;  goes  back  of 
printed   editions   of   Bible,   30. 

Manuscripts,    no    very   ancient,    of 
O.   T.,  extant,   2. 
19 


Marshal's  pen  or  staff,  232. 

Maskir,   scribe   or    recorder,   217. 

Memorial,  against  Amalek,  Mo- 
saic origin   of,  254. 

Method,  or  line  of  argument,  in 
Higher  Criticism;  literary,  val- 
ue of,  38;  historical,  value  of, 
39;    theological,  value  of,  41. 

Meshalim,  various  kinds  of,  225. 

Midian,  ancient  civilization  and 
culture  of,   151,   170. 

Minaeans,  powerful  kingdom  of, 
in  Mosaic  age,  169;  culture  of 
influenced  Israel  in  Mosaic  age 
(Benzinger),    212,   213. 

Minaean  script,  151 ;  employed  by 
Moses  (Hommel),  169;  an- 
tiquity of,  170. 

Mitannians  in  Canaan  in  early 
times,  70. 

Moabites,  culture  of,  169;  early 
date  of  their  adoption  of  the 
Phoenician  script,  169. 

Moabite  Stone,  discovery  of,  95 ; 
epigraphic  value  of,  95. 

Monotheism,  of  Terahites  and 
Abraham,  241 ;  belief  in  true, 
impulse  to  Abraham's  migration 
from  Ur,  241. 

Mosaic  age,  "wiped  out"  (Duhm) 
by  post-Exilic  date  of  Priest 
code,    II,  267. 

Moses,  education  of,  175;  learned 
hieroglyphic  and  hieratic  writ- 
ing 175;  personality  of,  204; 
influenced  by  Minjean  culture, 
212;  author  of  Song  of  Moses 
and  Miriam,  255;  of  Song  of 
Moses,  264;  of  Blessing  of 
Moses,  265;  composed  all  of  the 
Pentateuch,  according  to  tradi- 
tionalists, 11;  composed  none 
of  it  according  to  extremists, 
II  ff;  greater  than  Hammu- 
rabi and  Chuenaten  (Gress- 
mann),  202,  203;  a  great  per- 
sonality  (Volz),  203. 

Mycaenean  civilisation  and  script, 
138. 

Myths,  alleged  in  Genesis.  See 
Legend  and   saga. 


290 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 


Narratives,  the  Genesis,  largely 
legends,  myths,  sagas,  according 
to  Grafians,  20;  contain  authen- 
tic history,  193  ff. 

Nehemiah,  his  reading  of  the  law, 
:^7;    had  ancient  book,  277. 

Nomads,  character  of  real,  198; 
were  the  Hebrews  such,  or  sem- 
i-nomads?,  197-199,  200, 

North  Semitic  inscriptions,  93- 
123. 

Ode  of  Deborah,  a  work  of  geni- 
us, and  classic,  231 ;  in  archaic 
Hebrew  script,  231;  written  out 
from  the  first,  230;  a  starting- 
point  for  literary-historical 
criticism,  79,  80. 

Old  Testament,  problems  of,  O. 
T.  science,  i,  2.  3 ;  a  record  of 
God's  revelation,  270. 

Old  Testament  Books,  early,  af- 
firmed to  have  been  written^  in 
Babylonian  language  and  script, 
161 ;  evidence  of  Gezer  cunei- 
form tablets,  179;  hypothesis  of 
Winckler,  Benzinger,  and  Jer- 
emias,  concerning,  104,  105; 
written  in  cuneiform  (Conder, 
Sayce)  188,  189;  written  in  He- 
brew language  and  script,  as 
proved  from  archaic  Hebrew  in- 
scriptions, and  other  considera- 
tions,   108-120,    223-236. 

Origin  of  O.  T.  hooks,  question 
for  Higher  Criticism,  31,  32. 

Ostraca,  Samaria,  114,  165;  ar- 
chaic character  of  script,  114, 
166;  epigraphic  value  of,  114, 
165 ;  afford  proof  of  papyrus  as 
writing-material    in   Israel,    115. 

Palaeography,  importance  of,  9^ : 
an  exact  science,  154;  valuable 
in  O.  T.  study,  154,  155- 

Palestine,  civilization  of,  in  time 
of  Abraham,  69,  70;  ability  of 
people  to  learn  the  cuneiform, 
70;  early  native  literature  in, 
70;  Babylonian  language  and 
script  in,  70,   178,   179,  245-250. 

Panbabylonism  and  Gezer  cunei- 
form tablets,  179;  no  Babylon- 
ian influence  in  early  monarchi- 
cal period,  187. 


Papyrus,  as  writing-material  in 
Egypt,  55-57;  in  Palestine  and 
Syria  in  early  times  (Kittel), 
115;  In  Israel,  108,  217;  used 
in  Byblos  in  early  times,  171 ; 
sent  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  for 
use  in  books,  172;  early  use 
among   Hebrews,    115. 

Papyri,  various,  59-61. 

Patriarchs,  no  historical  knowl- 
edge of  (Wellhausen),  20;  per- 
sonifications of  tribes  (Grafi- 
ans), 21;  real  personages,  ac- 
cording to  safe  criticism,  197- 
200. 

Pentateuch,  traditional  view  of,  9; 
Moses  as  author  of,  9;  unity 
and  integrity  of,  10;  modern 
critical  view  of,  9,  269-279; 
no  ancient  copy  of,  extant,  161 ; 
reflects  ideas  and  conditions  of 
eighth  cent.  B.  C.  and  so  con- 
tains little  of  historical  value 
(Grafians),  10,  197;  is  substan- 
tially from  Mosaic  age,  as  at- 
tested by  internal  and  external 
evidence,  238-282;  Christ's  view 
of,  9,   281. 

Philistines,    130. 

Philosophy  of  History,  Grafian, 
monistic  and  evolutionistic,  8, 
270;  theistic,  as  presented  in 
the  O.  T.,  208. 

Phoneticism,  Egyptian,  defined 
and  illustrated,  56;  Babylonian, 
53- 

Phonograms,  character  of,  53; 
cuneiform,  55;  iig>-ptian,  56; 
prodigious  number  of  Egyptian, 
57. 

Phoenicians,  in  history,  144;  rela- 
tion with  Egypt,  144;  had  need 
of  simple  script,  145 ;  drew 
from  all  quarters  in  formation 
of  alphabet.  147 ;  devised  alpha- 
bet in   Memphis   or   Sidon.    148. 

Phoenician  inscriptions,  Moabite, 
95;  Baal-Lebanon,  96;  Hassan- 
Bey-li,  Nora,  Abu  Simbel,  97; 
Assyrian  Lion-Weight,  Abydos, 
Byblos,  Tabnith  and  Eshmuna- 
zar,  98;  deductions,  99. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS. 


291 


Phoenician  hypothesis  of  origin  of 
alphabet,    84.    144-149. 

Priest  code,  characteristic  of,  13 ; 
age  of,  14;  prior  to  D,  16;  an- 
cient, 243 ;  language  and  style 
of,  274;  material  of,  274;  liter- 
ary source  of,  275,  276;  adapted 
to  Mosaic,  not  to  Ezraic  age, 
276;  traces  of,  in  other  codes, 
279;  Ezekiel  and  the  Priest 
code,   277. 

Prophets,  the  writing,  later  than 
the   Law,  22,  76. 

Proto-Phoenician  alphabet;  date 
of,  150;  circulated  in  Babylon- 
ia, Canaan,  Arabia,  Egypt,  123, 
142,   147,   150,   151,   152,   153. 

Psalms  of  David.  See  Literature 
Hebrew. 

Pseudograph,  Deuteronomy,  a,  ac- 
cording to   Grafians,   257. 

Pseudonymous  writings,  authors 
of,  usually  detected,  257. 

Reconciliation,  of  conservative  and 
modern  critical  views  on  Penta- 
teuch,   24-26,    280-283. 

Records,  written,  of  early  O.  T. 
books,  16,  17;  old  Hebrew, 
238;  pre-Mosaic  Hebrew,  239; 
Abraham  and  early  Babylonian 
and  Hebrew,  250. 

Revelation  to  Abraham  (Baentsch 
and  Orelli),  241 ;  motive  of  his 
migration,  241. 

Sabacan-Minaean  script;  elegance 
of  form  of,  156;  relation  to 
Phoenician,   156,    157. 

Sacrifice  in  Wellhausen  system, 
as  bearing  on  date  of  Priest 
code,  273. 

Saga,  so-called,  in  Genesis,  194  f. ; 
alleged  poetic  character  of,  195 ; 
a  simple  prose  narrative,  195 ; 
Gunkel's  view  of,  195 ;  contains 
authentic    history,    194-196. 

Samaria  Ostraca.  See  Ostraca 
Samaria. 

Sanctuary,  central  at  Shiloh,   273. 

Sanctuaries,  Hebrew  in  time  of 
Judges,  273 ;  imply  Mosaic 
Law,  272,. 

Sargon  I,  date  of,  62,,  64. 
19a 


Scribe,  pen  of,  in  Deborah's  Ode, 
22>2. 

Scribe,  Hebrew,  various  names 
for;  sopher,  215;  shoter,  216; 
chartom,  217;  mazkir,  217; 
tipnsar,  217;  Jeremiah  and  the 
scribe  Baruch,  218. 

Scribes,  Babylonian,  54;  priests 
as  scribes,  54;  skilled  Egyptian, 
60;  education  of,  widespread, 
70;  in  employ  of  Abraham,  72; 
numerous,  240;  in  service  of 
Aloses,  236,  251,  281. 

Scribings  Sinai,  discovered  by 
Petrie;  new  kind  of  writing, 
152;  early  date  of,  152;  proba- 
bly earliest  Phoenician,  1500  B. 
C,  152. 

Script,  Phoenician,  possibility  of 
Moses  employing  it,  81,  82;  ear- 
ly Hebrew  literature  in  it,  83; 
Cretan,  92,  129;  Aegean,  91; 
Cypriote,  99;  Phoenician  in 
narrow  sense,  with  marked  pe- 
culiarities, 99;  gradual  devel- 
opment of  Phoenician,  99;  com- 
parison of  Phoenician,  Aramaic 
and  Hebrew,  122;  old  Semitic 
in  middle  of  second  pre-Chris- 
tian millennium,  122;  Hittite, 
137;  non-adoption  of  Phoenici- 
an by  Babylonians,  149;  intro- 
duction of  foreign  into  various 
lands,  155;  Minaean-Sabaean, 
156;  N.  and  S.  Semitic  compared, 
157;  of  early  O.  T.  books,  160 
fif. ;  of  Hebrews  after  Exile, 
162,  163 ;  Phoenician  employed 
by  Hebrews  at  Exodus,  163, 
168;  archaic  Hebrew  in  1000  B. 
C,  166;  suitable  Hebrew,  neces- 
sary, 167;  Deborah's  Ode  in  ar- 
chaic Hebrew,  168;  Phoenician 
among  nations  surrounding  Is- 
rael, 168;  how  Hebrews  ac- 
quired Phoenician,  172;  Minaean, 
ancient  character  of,  151,  158; 
alleged  sacred  and  profane 
among   Hebrews,    183,    184,    188. 

Scriptura  privata,  the  Phoenician 
alphabet,  long  a,  147,  150. 

Scriptura  publica,  the  cuneiform, 
long  a,   147,   153,   170. 


292 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE, 


Seal  Jeroboam,  165. 

Seals,  importance  of,  in  ancient 
'times,  116;  Egyptian,  117; 
Babylonian,  117,  118;  Hebrew, 
118;     archaic    Hebrew,    1 18-120. 

Semites,  character  and  influence 
of,  45,  46;  include  Babylonians, 
Assyrians,  Aramaeans,  Hebrews, 
46 ;  original  home  of,  47,  48 ;  im- 
migration  of,   into   Canaan,  75. 

Semites,  Northern,  original  home 
of,  48;  Clay's  view,  48,  50,  62, 
70;    L.  W.  King's  view,  64,  70, 

75- 

Semitic  alphabet.  See  Alphabet, 
Script,   Writing. 

Semitism,  in  Egypt,  143. 

Shakespeare,  textual  criticism  of 
his  works  difficult,  30. 

Shiloh,  seat  of  central  sanctuary 
and  of  books,  273. 

Sepher,  book,  writing,  214;  occurs 
in  Book  of  Wars  of  Jehovah, 
224;  term  probably  Babylonian 
and   ancient    in   Israel,    224. 

Shoter,  scribe,   Hebrew,  218. 

Signaries,  signwritings,  in  5000 
B.  C,    (Petrie),  150. 

Sidon,  antiquity  and  civilization 
of,  145. 

Silence,  argument  from,  41, 

Siloam  inscription,  Hebrew,  clas- 
sic character  of,   109. 

Sinai  Scribings.     See  above, 

Sinuhe,  story  of,  60. 

Song  of  the  Bow,  in  Book  of 
Jashar. 

Song  of  Moses,  264,  265. 

Song  of  Moses  and  Miriam,  255, 

Song  of  the  Well,  antiquity  of, 
225,  226. 

Sources,  theory  of  old  Babyloni- 
an and  Canaanite,  used  in  Gen- 
esis, 191,  248;  accessible  to 
Moses,  238-279. 

South-Semitic  alphabet,  sister  of 
N.  Semitic,  123 ;  in  two  dialects, 
Minsean  and  Sabaean,  124;  early 
date  of,  125,  126;  possibly  ear- 
lier than  N.   Semetic,   124. 

South-Semitic  inscriptions,  123- 
126. 


Standard  Egyptian  alphabet,  85, 
86. 

Square  or  Aramaic  script,  used  by 
Hebrews  after  Exile,  162 ;  epi- 
graphic  testimony,  162;  date  of 
introduction   indefinite,   163. 

Stone,  Moabite.     See  above. 

Stone,  ancient  writings  on,  pecu- 
liarly valuable,  93. 

Stone  tablets  of  Law,  size  and 
weight,  176;  language  and 
script,  I7S. 

Style  and  vocabulary,  as  marks  of 
authorship,  :i7,  38,  39;  illustrat- 
ed fiom  English,  German  and 
French  authors,  39. 

Supernatural,  the,  in  critical  dis- 
cussion, 23,  24,  269. 

Syllabaries,  Abridged  Egyptian, 
possible  prototype  of  Phoenician 
alphabet,  145,  147;  Babylonian, 
55. 

Syllables,  not  letters,  used  in  Bab- 
ylonian writing,  53-55 ;  like- 
wise in  Egyptian,  55-57. 

Tabernacle  of  Priest  code,  an 
ideal  structure  (Grafians),  272; 
a  real  structure  (traditional- 
ists), 273. 

Tablets,  Babylonian,  num.ber  of, 
62;  contain  varied  writings,  62; 
accessible  to   Abraham,  240-244. 

Tabnith,  Phoenician  inscription  of, 
in  style  of  autographs  of  later 
O.  T.,  98. 

Tell  el  Amarna  Tablets.  See 
Amarna  Letters. 

Tell  Taanach,  library  chest  of, 
178;    in  cuneiform,  178,  179. 

Tent-Life  in  Israel  not  incompat- 
ible wnth  culture  and  semi-no- 
madic state,  200. 

Terahites  had  knowledge  of  writ- 
ing,  160,  240-242. 

Textual  criticism.  See  Lower 
Criticism. 

Theological  argument,  value  of, 
41. 

Thera,  Greek  inscription  in,   133. 

Tiphsar,   Hebrew   scribe,   217, 

Tradition,  original  oral,  of  early 
iO._  T.  books  (Grafians),  18;  vs. 
original   written  records,   17. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJFXTS. 


293 


Transmission  of  early  O.  T. 
books,  in  pre-Davidic  period,  3, 
4;  by  written  records,  16,  17; 
of  Deuteronomy,  267,  268;  ac- 
curacy of,  30. 

Trustworthiness  of  documents  to 
be  accepted,  44;  of  early  He- 
brew books    (E.   Meyer),   207. 

Tupsliar,   Babylonian   scribe,   240. 

Tyre,  antiquity  of,  145. 

Unity  of  Pentateuch,  according  to 
traditional  and  modern  critical 
views,   10. 

Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  ancient  seat 
of  religion  and  civilization,  63, 
64,  160,  240;  literary  center, 
240.     See  Abraham. 

Vocabulary  and  style,  as  index  of 
age  and   authorship,  2>7^  38. 

Wellhausenism,  denies  Mosaic  au- 
thorship of  Pentateuch,  10,  11: 
places  prophecy  before  the  law, 
22) ;  logic  of,  regarding  Hebrew 
writing  and  literature,  84;  de 
velopment  of  civilization,  liter 
ature  and  religion  in  Israel  in  ? 
straight  line,  279 ;  absoluteb- 
certain  of  its  correctness,  24. 

Wen-Amon,  diary  of,   168;    refer? 
to  papyrus,  171 ;    mentions  mon 
ument  of  prince,   172. 

West-Land,  the.  See  Amurn- 
Canaan,   Palestine. 

Worship,  Hebrew,  according  td- 
Ex,  XX,  in  time  of  Judges,  273, 

Writing,  definition  of,  52 ;  slow  in 
development,   52;    kinds   of,   53; 


cuneiform,  53;  Eg>-ptian  55; 
pictorial  and  ideographic,  55; 
phonetic  and  syllabic,  56;  de- 
terminatives, 53,  57;  on  Egyp- 
tian pyramids  and  obelisks,  59; 
two  theories  of  antiquity  of  He- 
brew, 5,  7,  8,  17;  oldest  Egyp- 
tian, 60,  61 ;  Egyptian  partly 
alphabetic  from  the  first,  85; 
practised  by  common  people  in 
Egypt,  57;  Babylonian,  62;  by 
middle-class  Babylonians  in  ear- 
ly times,  66;  in  use  among  He- 
brews at  Exodus,  80;  Hittite, 
boustrophedon,  88;  Aegean,  91, 
129;  writing  with  pen  of  a  man, 
(Is.  8:  i),  183;  direction  of  in, 
hieratic  and  Phoenician,  149; 
direction  of,  in  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian,  149;  in  Hebrew 
square  characters,  162;  in  ar- 
chaic Hebre\v,  162;  in  Phoenici- 
an script  in  time  of  Joshua,  234; 
cuneiform,  known  to  Abraham, 
and  patriarchs.  240. 

Writing-Material,  in  Babylonia, 
63.  65;  in  Egypt,  55;  in  Israel, 
7,  108-116,  118-121,  164-169,  214- 
217,  229-234;  in  Palestine  and 
Syria,    115. 

Zakar  or  Zakir,  early  Aramaic  in- 
scription, of,  101-103,  172;  dis- 
covered in  1903  by  Pognon, 
loi ;  king  of  Hazrak,  102 ;  epi- 
graphic    value    of,    103. 

Zinjirli,  the  Aramaic  inscriptions 
of,  104;  date  and  language  of, 
105. 


11. 


INDEX  OF   AUTHORS. 


Aibbott  L.,  5. 
Addis,  W.  E.,  254. 

Bacon,  F.,  38. 

Baentsch,   B.,   241,  253,  255. 

Baethgen,  F.,  209. 

Ball,  C.  J.,  138,   139,   141,   143- 

Barton,   G.  A.,   180,  233. 

Baudissin,  W.  W.,  33,  272,  278. 

Baur,  G.,  220. 

Bavinck,   H..  270,  271. 

Beardslee  J.   W.,   10 

Behrends,  A.  J.  F..  7,  10. 

Bennett,  W.  H.,  228. 

Bennett  and  Adeney,   13,  205,  251. 

Bentley,  R.,  41. 

Benzinger,  J.,  8,  182,  183,  185,  187, 

212,  244,  245. 
Bergk,  J.,   130. 
Bezold,  C.,  246. 
Birt,   Th.,   145. 
Bissell,    E.    C.,   7,    9,    22,   52,    259, 

260,  264. 
Bliss  and  Dickie,  72. 
Bliss  and   Macalister,  72,   116. 
Boeckh,    Aug.,    128,    132. 
Boehl,   E.,  26. 
Boettcher,  F.,  139. 
Bondi,  F.,  147. 
Boyd,  J.   O.,  277,  278. 
Breasted,  J.  H.,  58,  60,  61,  143. 
Bredenkamp,  C.  J.,  22,  272. 
Briggs,  C.  A.,  10,  78,  219,  220. 
Brugsch,  H.  K..  60,  143. 
Bndde,  K.,  251. 
Budge,  E.  A.  W.,  59.  143. 
Burke,   E.,   39. 
Byron,  Lord,  39. 

Cameron,  G.   G.,  34. 
Carpenter,   J.   E.,   269. 
Charterton,   T.,  40,  259. 
Chaucer,  Geof.,  2. 


Cheyne,  T.  K.,   10,  11,  33.  39,  112, 

217,  226,  257. 
Clay,  A.  T.,  48,  50,  62,  70,  73,  182, 

185,  240,  249,   274. 
Clermont-Ganneau,    163. 
Cohn,   F.,  252. 
Clodd,  E.,  91. 
Conder,    C.    R.,    8,    125,    161,    183, 

184,   188. 
Cornill,  C.  H.,  8,  10,  13,  18,  19,  33, 

195,  209,  257. 
Cooke,  S.  A.,  70. 
Cooke,  G.  A.,  94,  96,  97,  104,   105, 

106,  107,  i(^. 
Credner,  W.,  33. 
Curtius,  E.,  130. 
Croisset,   A.,    127. 

Dareste,  E.,  252. 

Davis,  J.  D.,  78,  175,  219. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  19,  51,  202,  217, 
282. 

Delitzsch.  Friedrich,  54,  55,  86, 
137,  1^8,   139,  145. 

Dillmann,  Aug.,  15,  16,  26,  33,  183, 
203,  225,  234,  248,  249,  252, 
254,   256,  265,  269,  274,  279. 

Deutsch,  E.,  228. 

Deecke,  W.,  89. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  85,  129. 

Donaldson,  J.  W.,  228. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  10,  12,  13,  14,  34,  73, 
98,  102,  176,  205,  220,  227,  244, 
246,  247,  257,  263,  264,  266. 

Duhm,  B.,  II,  267. 

Duncan,  J.  G.,  203,  282. 

Ebers,   G..  86. 
Edershcim,  E.,   19. 
Edwards,   Amelia   B..   268. 
Eerdtnanns.  B.  D.,  198,  201. 
Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  33. 
Epiphanius,   163. 
Erbt.  W.,    19,  249.  250. 


'294 


INDEX   OF  AUTPIORS, 


295 


Euting,  J.,  86,  94,  97. 
Evans,  A.  J.,  91,  92,  97,  129. 
Evvald,   H.,   5,   7,    17,   33,   51,   199, 
225,  227,  249. 

Freeman,  E.  A.,  42,  43. 
Fries,  W.,   138. 
Fuer&t,  J.,   17,  226,  242. 

Gayley  and   Scott,  35. 

Gercke,  A.,   132,    135. 

Gesenius,  W.,   139. 

Gibson,  I.,  25. 

Giesebrech.t,  F.,  256. 

Girdlestone,  R.  B.,   17,  243. 

Goethe,  J.  W.,  39. 

Gordon,  A.  R.,  25. 

Glaser,  E.,   159. 

Goodspeed,  G.  C.,  106. 

Graf,  K.  H.,  10,  11,  14,  15,  16,  271. 

Gray   G.  B.,  no,  in,  180,  220,  226. 

Green,  W.  H.,  7,  9,  10,  17,  22,  26, 

139,  247,  248. 
Gressmann,  H..  200,  203. 
Grimme,  H.,  158. 
Gunkel,  H.,  193,  246,  247,  256. 

Halevy,   J.,  85,  87,    102,    105,    no, 

138,  140,  269. 
Harper,  W.  R.,  10,   n,  12,  33. 
Hanpt,  P.,  255. 

Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  5,  17,   I9- 
Herodotus,  84,   129,   134,  262. 
Hervey,  Bishop,  19. 
Herzog,  Real-Encyk.,  often. 
Hicks  and  Hill,  129. 
Hilprecht,  H.  V.,  54.  64,  240. 
Hitzig,  W.,  32>- 
Hogarth,  D.  G.,  91- 
Holzinger,   H.,   10,   n,   12,  3^,  226, 

227,  246,  255,  257,  261,  263. 
Homer,  2,  15,  129,  219. 
Hommel,  F.,   6,   89,    104,    123,    124, 

142,    I. /1 7.    150,    170,    245,    246, 

250. 
Horace,  38. 

Jastrow.   }vl.,  jr.,   55,  240.  242. 

Jensen,  P.,  246. 

Jeremias,    A.,    161,    184.    241,    244, 

248. 
Jerome,  163. 
Johns,  C  H.  W.,  65.  240. 


Jordan,  W.  G.,  25. 
Josephus,  Fl.,   143. 

Kant,   E.,  27. 

Kautzsch,  E.,  24.  n2,  113,  120,  218, 

226,  229,  251. 
Keil,  C.  T.,  7,  225. 
Kent,  C.  F.,  8,  18,  19,  77,  200,  218, 

223,  269. 
King.  L.  W.,  64.  74,  75. 
Kingsley,  C,  258. 
Kinns,  S.,  175. 
Kirkpatrick,  A.  F.,  79,  222. 
Kittel,  R.,  6,  15,  19,  lis,  166,  173, 

183,    202,    209,    211,   231,    243, 

254,  269,  273. 
Kleinert,    P.,    265. 
Klostermann,  A.,  265,  266. 
Kliige,   W.,   150. 
Koenig,    Eduard,    15,    33,    38,    51. 

139,  183,  191,  207,  208,  210,  217, 

231,    233,    239,    248,    250,    256, 

259- 
Koehler,  A.,  19,   189. 
Kraetzmar,   R.,   253. 
Krall,  J.,  145,   148,   149. 
Kuenen,  A.,   10,  n,   15,  19,  20,  26, 

33,  39,  2n,  223,  230,  231,  257, 

261,  276. 
Kurtz,  J.  H.,  19. 
Kyle,  M.  G.,  145,  I47- 

Ladd,  G.  T.,  17. 

Lagarde,   P.  de,  86,  87,  90. 

Lane,  E.  W.,  189. 

Larfeld,  W.,  124,  128,  128,  129,  130, 

131. 

Leathes,  S.,   19. 

Lenormant,  F.,  86,  217. 

Levy,   J.,   99. 

Lias.  J.  J.,  243. 

Liddon,  H.  P.,  8,  g. 

Lidzbarski,  M.,  96,  97,  98,  103,  no, 
III,  113,  116,  125,  138,  140, 
145,  155,  156,  157,  163,  164- 

Lotz,   W.,    19,   274. 

Lucan,  85. 

Luckenbill,  D.  D.,  68,  69,  73- 

Lyon.  D.  G,  n4,  n5.  166. 

Macalister,  R.  A.   S.,   109. 
MacDill,  D.,   10. 
Maclear,  G.  F..  209,  235. 
Macpherson,  J.,  40,  259. 


296 


ANTIQUITY  OF  HEBREW   LITERATURE. 


Mahaffy,  J.   P.,   134. 

McCurdy,  J.  F.,  46,  48,  49,  68,  90, 

137,    181,    197,    199,  201. 
McNeile,  A.  H.,  25,  173,  202,  251, 

254. 
Marti,  K.,   11. 

Maspero,  G.  C.  C,  54,  57,  86. 
Meinhold,  A.,  21,  25. 
Merx,   A.,  33. 
Meyer,   Eduard,  44,   88,   207.   208. 

225.  246. 
Mitchell,  H.  G.,  12. 
Milman,   H.  H.,   19. 
Milton,  J.,  39. 
Montgomery,  J.  A.,  102. 
Moore,    G.    F.,    14,   206,  216,   229, 

231,  233,  255. 
Moulton,  R.  G.,  26. 
Movers,  F.  C,  145. 
Mueller,  W.  M.,  68,  70,  149.  233. 

Naville,  E.,  191,  268,  269. 
Neubauer,   E.,    163. 
Noeldeke,   Th.,  138,   247. 
Nowack,  W.,  8,  33,  70,  89. 

Oettli,  S.,  261,  262,  264,  266. 

Orelli,   C.,  von,  33,  229,  231,  241. 

Orig-en,  163. 

Orr,  J.,  7,  252,  254. 

Ottley,  R.   L.,  23,  212. 

Paton,  L.  B.,  69,  71,  174,  277. 

Patterson,  W.  P.,  252. 

Perrot  and  Chipiez,  117,  118,  119, 

121. 
Peters,  J.  P.,  21,  138,  139,  141,  143, 

200. 
Petrie,  W.  M.  F.,  72,  91,  150,  152. 
Phaleris,    Pseudo,   259. 
Philo,  Judaeus,  175. 
Piepenbring.  C,  19. 
Pilcher,  E.  J.,  153. 
Plato,  85. 
Plutarch,  85. 
Pliny,  the  Elder,   129.- 
Pognon,   H.,  47,   loi. 
Poole,  R.  S.,  86,  174. 
Praetorius,    R,    157. 
Puukko,  A.  F.,  253,  264. 

Raven,  J.   H.,   10. 
Rawlinson,  H.,  56,  145,  173. 


Reuss,  E.,  6,  9,  10,  11,  19,  174,  176, 

227,  231,  272. 
Richardson,   E.   C.,   194. 
Riehm,  E.,  22,  272. 
Robertson,  J.,  76,  171,  272. 
Rogers,  R.  W.,  63. 
Ronzevalle,    S.,   no. 
Rouge,  Em.  de,  85,  86. 
Ryle,  H.  E.,  i,  10. 

Sachau,  E.,  96. 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  7,  19,  69,  104,  116, 

153,  161,  225,  232,  242,  244, 

246,  248,  256. 
Schrader,  E.,  33. 
Schultz,  H.,  272. 
Scott,  W.,  39. 

Sellin,  E.,  72,  178,  243,  249. 
Shakespeare,   W.,   2,   30,   40,   257. 
Schultens,   A.,   189. 
Sievers,   E.,    195,  255. 
Skinner,   John,   251,    246,   248. 
Skinner,  J.,  185. 
Smend,  R.,  8,  23,  24,  223. 
Smith,  G.  A.,  179,  198.  227,  269. 
Smith,  H.  P.,  19,  21,  200,  218,  220, 

227. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  8,  23,  213. 
Smith,  W.,  19. 
Sommerville,  2\L,  117. 
Stade,  B.,  6,  10,  19,  24,  33,  112,  159, 

174,  200,  211,  225,  226. 
Stanley,  A.   P.,   19,   195,  253. 
Steuernagel,   Carl.   13,   195,  253. 
Streane,  A.  W.,  186. 
Strabo,  175. 
Strack,  H.  L.,  24,  191,  249,  255. 

Tacitus,  85. 

Taylor,  I.,  87,  94,  96,  98,   131,  I33, 

134. 
Thompson,  E.   M.,   131,  135. 
Thomson.   E.,  234. 
Tiele,  C.  P.,  250. 
Toy,  C.  H.,  62. 

Vatke,  W.,  8,  16,  33. 

Vincent    W.  H.,  72,  no,  in,  120. 

Virgil,  2. 

Volck,  W.,   19,  25,  265,  266. 

Voltaire,  F,  M.  A.,  39. 

Volz,  P.,  204. 

Vcs,  G.,  10,  22,  254,  272. 


INDEX   OF  AUTHORS. 


297 


Wallace,  L.,  258. 

Ward,  W.  H.,  88. 

Watson,  R.  A.,  22,  252. 

Weber,  O.,  61,  66,  147,  150,  151, 
157,  270. 

Wellhausen,  J.,  6,  10,  11,  14,  18, 
20,  23,  159,  211,  223,  22^,  230, 
231,  250,  253,  270,  293. 

White,  R.  G.,  30. 


Wiener,  H.  M.,  272,  2^^- 
Wildeboer,  G.,  i,  18,  2>Z- 
Winckler,  H.,  19,  ^2,  142,  161,  169, 

185,   186,   187,  244. 
Wrig-ht,  W.,  88. 
Wolf,  F.  A.,  41. 

Zakar,  loi,  103. 
Zimmern,   H.,  94,  246. 


XiV 


KV 


XXX 


XXXI 


vr 


npsUon 
u 


(P 


^f 


4^ 


ia 


phi.  pk 


chl.    ch 


Pri,     ps 


omega,  7 


23 


24 


25 


26 


27 


Origin  of  the  Semitic  (PhoenicianHebrew)  Alphabet 


pho.Md.11. 

^.. 

.... 

South  Smia.. 

.^. 

Ul. 

1 

" 

III 

IV 

• 

" 

Vll 

vni 

1, 

* 

XI 

XII 

XIII 

XIV 

x» 

„ 

^ 

xmi 

XIX 

XX 

XXI  Ixxii 

XXIII 

XXIV           XXV 

...,l„. 

...1 

XXIX 

Cdneui. 

_  We.len 

•      xxxii,     1  t..u„.   1 

im. 

XIX             XXXI 

■•Mo'.L 

,^. 

"^T 

-- 

£op«.n 

=«,.. 

""'- 

sr 

.... 

H»,'".d 

H 

r 

jl_ 

bS-d" 

s 

"r 

¥  = 

aT 

H 

1 

I'cJnt 

r.im. 

s 

^""'    v<r 

;;"" 

'E- 

= 

'■"S-T* 

z 

,«!rf.o 

3't 

«'i" 

c 

KIL 

It 

1 

^ 

*->- 

'"u  ll'J" 

X 

^ 

/:. 

?. 

-' 

«.,.. 

<:♦= 

< 

iic' 

s< 

"f"-^ 

^ 

&^ 

L^ 

<p 

^ 

< 

<(- 

¥f 

4^ 

^ 

^t 

iJ 

h  0  /^ 

^ 

A 

^ 

T- 

1 

2 

4^ 

^T 

««(0>« 

V 

^ 

... 

r?» 

^ 

^ 

^ 

5 

^1 

^ 

^ 

5 

^ 

9 

^ 

y 

y 

^ 

SiJ 

n 

n  nn 

^ 

^ 

B 

r 

2 

3 

^ 

V 

jam, 

A 

;^ 

s 

^ 

^., 

Ts"' 

1 

-A 

1-1 

-/ 

/\ 

"a^ 

AT 

■\ 

n 

^ 

7 

■\ 

-77 

J 

"/  a 

-7 

r 

r< 

„.„ 

3 

4 

V  ? 

^^Tr<t 

l';,r. 

-^13 

-cv 

-^ 

.... 

rs 

<:^ 

A 

^ 

^■ 

■=i'\ 

'^ 

^ 

S 

^ 

\ 

A 

^ 

A 

/) 

A 

A 

1 

A 

A 

A 

■r 

4 

5 

a 

^1 

*i™.'' 

)e 

nz) 

m 

tr\ 

.. 

■;■ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

\ 

^ 

^ 

<\ 

^ 

\ 

^n 

n 

V  V  ) 

-a* 

.^ 

(^ 

.«,.. 

5 

(i 

tT 

>^M- 

Z'  '".t 

71 

^1..=^ 

/ 

/ 

„. 

r- 

Y 

1 

7 

H 

4 

4 

1 

^ 

)7 

rr 

f/Y 

1 

rr 

1 

(D^Js  V 

^ 

r 

r 

'•rr 

• 

^. 

^tT^^ 

'LLii 

^^ 

/r 

t 

s 

"f' 

t 

rx 

\ 

-u 

-Z: 

X 

Z 

z 

_ 

J  J 

_y 

■x; 

XX 

I" 

y   H 

I 

X 

I 

■r 

8 

Hlfl-J 

at 

^TO.J'^'' 

IK 

@ 

(Z? 

(D 

"•■ 

,;:"} 

-i- 
I 

P 

0 

B 

HW 

^ 

fl 

^ 

^ 

^ 

n 

^^. 

B^H 

P 

e\tl 

n 

fi=VV  .! 

B 

B 

BH 

? 

8 

a 

^^EB 

^^T^l^ 

»,  l^'S 

^ 

8= 

c^ 

c>. 

-. 

!.«,. 

^ 

® 

e 

d 

(» 

cs 

0 

, 

D 

ID  mM 

® 

® 

Q 

T 

9 

lU 

^ 

•^^1 

'"■.■^f'/' 

7 

\\ 

y 

^ 

K' 

^ 

^ 

^ 

? 

T/l 

^ 

nH 

\ 

=L 

\ 

1 

^ 

.! 

^n 

21 

^Z 

" 

?  ? 

■^ 

^ 

1 

■"" 

10 

u 

1t-v 

U^^l 

J^^. 

^ 

'^iTi 

<ix 

o^ 

.„ 

T' 

) 

y 

r 

^ 

^ 

/y 

i 

f 

/ 

y 

y 

; 

^^  i 

t 

i 

/5 

Dl 

h  t7 

>l 

K 

K 

..... 

11 

12 

£- 

^^11 

r..r:;^ 

4 

J^!£ 

r^ 

u... 

.„.. 

J. 

/i 

L 

^ 

6 

A 

^f, 

{ 

i 

^ 

^ 

^ 

L 

(i 

/    I, 

6 

i  L 

'> 

^7? 

^ 

A 

/A 

""."'■ 

12 

1.1 

1^  t  ;<trr  -^T' 

r;r 

AA 

1. 

^ 

.... 

•;r 

^ 

^ 

^ 

"1 

"^ 

^. 

W 

Uj 

/J, 

7 

"/ 

•^ 

'f'i    1 

V- 

y 

y^ 

OD 

>l  11  I] 

^ 

r^ 

AA 

r 

13 

14 

^tii-^  r^:. 

«-;.,"- 

T 

^ 

■" 

.„. 

7; 

y 

11 

\'^ 

"7 

"7 

V 

^ 

> 

> 

^ 

) 

>)     ^ 

1 

1    ) 

3? 

'I  ^  ^ 

1 

r 

r^ 

■; 

U 

IS 

n^m^^^w 

.s. 

J_ 

^ 

^ 

.Ji^ 

•"•' 

¥ 

¥ 

X_ 

f 

^ 

\ 

¥ 

? 

T 

T 

^ 

! 

f 

1 

D 

h^v/ 

E 

ffl 

+ 

r 

16 

16 

0^<^<l'^l}< 

„(,.„), 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

«v 

0 

(9 

0 

0 

y 

v^.^^ 

0 

0 

0 

•"!"■ 

16 
17 

17 

^Ajfl^^     < 

a;";^. 

V/ 

i 

i^ 

"V 

.. 

r.. 

~ 

n 

7 

1 

7 

79 

7 

0 

7 

7 

7 

9 

1 

^^ 

0 

1 

D^ 

0  0 

n 

1' 

rn 

" 

18 

I   \-in 

[«;  S), 

"^ 

^ 

^ 

U.. 

,„... 

~" 

F 

h- 

V 

r^ 

rr 

T 

\ 

V 

Y 

Y 

r 

t'^ 

n  ^ 

iK 

V% 

yf 

^  '^y=a 

/^ 

AA 

"■ 

18 

in 

□  y     'TE^    ^.Z 

*«(«. 

AT 

A 

-Q, 

.... 

.     ,»  ■ 

T 

t 

y 

"^ 

f 

T 

^ 

t 

? 

T 

r 

? 

-P 

^ 

^ 

V 

^ 

Q 

"■'■" 

20 

VI]    *i^sT::Y 

as 

<=> 

•=^ 

^ 

„« 

~ 

\ 

<l 

T 

7" 

1 

\ 

^ 

4 

^ 

A 

H 

H 

'X 

-1^^ 

1_ 

A 

"^ 

y  >-■> 

<! 

Y 

K 

' 

20 

21 

H  ^ 

JtCT   ^ 

Z'J^' 

'^ 

ffi 

^ 

^ 

.^ 

s™,«.. 

~~ 

\A- 

VA/ 

w 

vv 

v>- 

a/ 

u^ 

w 

w 

w 

•v^ 

sy 

vL/ 

V4/ 

I.V 

M/ 

W 

^  > 

\ 

i 

^s 

"f 

22 

X  E 

►  ►^  I^ 

^•S 

Hl- 

} 

^ 

- 

'-,'" 

~ 

X 

7< 

S 

77 

/■/' 

_/!_ 

_/_ 

/ 

/ 

X 

XXII 

!^ 

X 

XXV 

X 

XT 

n 

x/?=gr 

T 

T 

r 

'     - 

22 
23 

J 

ljll_ 

[^m_ 

IX 

IZ! 

X,    1   x„ 

E 

jm_ 

bL 

b!!_ 

1 — 

ljlllll_ 

iil 

LU 

0 

..,M 

'24 

^t 

■"•  •* 

25 

y 

«..  p. 

26 

•^^ 

"""■' 

27 

Date  Due 


BS1171  .Z58 

The  antiquity  of  Hebrew  writing  and 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00011   8465 


